Gaylord 


'tf 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


I 


WILSHIRE  EDITORIALS 


BY 
GAYLORD   WILSHIRE 

Editor  Wilioire'*  Magazine 


WILSHIRE    BOOK    CO. 

200  WILLIAM  STREET 

NEW  YORK 


Copyright.  1906,  by 
GAYLORD    WILSHIRE 


PREFACE 


The  contents  of  this  volume  consist  almost  exclusively  of 
my  editorials  published  within  the  past  six  years  either  in 
"Wilshire's  Magazine"  or  in  "The  Challenge/'  its  predecessor. 

The  burden  of  my  song,  as  the  reader  will  quickly  gather, 
is  that  an  industrial  cataclysm  is  about  to  appear  in  the 
United  States  as  the  result  of  over-production. 

I  predict  this  notwithstanding  that  to-day  as  I  write  we  are 
in  the  fever  of  a  greater  industrial  expansion  than  the  country 
has  ever  before  experienced.  It  seems  impossible  to  supply 
demand.  Factories  are  over-burdened  with  orders.  Our 
mines  of  copper,  lead,  zinc,  silver  and  iron  are  being  worked 
day  and  night  under  the  stimulus  of  tremendously  high 
prices,  and  yet  are  unable  to  supply  demand. 

However,  my  endeavor  is  to  show  that  all  this  activity  is 
ephemeral  and  temporary,  that  the  great  demand  comes  far 
more  largely  from  consumption  by  the  capitalists  of  goods 
for  new  capital  expenditure  than  from  any  demand  by  the 
workers  for  necessities  of  life.  Shortly,  the  great  demand  is 
for  pig-iron,  not  pig-meat. 

The  essential  difference  between  the  two  demands,  speak- 
ing economically,  is  that  the  one  will  cease  as  soon  as  the  new 
machinery  is  built,  and  that  the  other,  based  on  human  hun- 
ger, can  never  cease. 

I  find  in  the  Trust  the  sign  that  the  industrial  demand  for 
new  machinery  is  coming  to  a  close ;  the  Trust  is  manifestly  a 
necessary  device  of  the  capitalist  to  subdue  the  ill  effects  of 
over-production  in  being  or  in  prospect, 

3 


796895 


4  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Our  immensely  increased  capacity  to  produce,  as  the  result 
of  the  use  of  better  and  better  machinery,  has  not  been  ac- 
companied by  any  superior  facilities  for  distribution  and  con- 
sumption except  to  the  extent  that  the  capitalists  have  found 
an  opportunity  to  expand  their  plants. 

The  workers  cannot,  to  any  extent,  increase  their  power  of 
consumption,  because  that  power  is  limited  by  their  wages, 
and  wages  are  forced  by  competition  to  remain  at  about  the 
point  of  subsistence. 

Money  wages  have,  indeed,  increased  somewhat  in  the  last 
few  years,  but  the  rise  in  price  of  living  has  kept  real  wages 
down  to  about  the  same  old  level  of  subsistence.  The  present 
period  of  great  expansion  is,  to  my  mind,  directly  traceable 
to  the  stimulus  given  by  the  three  great  wars  with  which  the 
world  has  lately  been  scourged.  I  refer  to  the  Boer-British 
South  African  war,  the  Spanish-American  war,  and,  finally, 
to  the  Kusso-Japanese  war.  The  effect  of  this  last  war  is  seen 
in  our  present  great  industrial  prosperity.  I  think  that  its 
influence  cannot  last  much  longer  than  a  year  from  to-day. 

I  believe  that  when  the  collapse  of  the  present  boom  shall 
usher  in  a  huge  unemployed  problem  that  the  workers  of  the 
United  States  will  refuse  to  be  placated  by  any  reasoning  of 
the  capitalists  to  the  effect  that  they  ought  to  expect  to  go 
hungry,  knowing  that  they  produce  so  much  more  than  they 
can  buy. 

The  day  has  passed  when  the  people  of  the  United  States 
will  be  satisfied  to  starve  because  they  produce  too  much  food. 

The  day  has  passed  when  the  people  of  a  whole  village  will 
submit  to  death  from  typhoid  fever  because  the  doctors  and 
preachers  pronounce  it  a  visitation  of  God  as  a  punishment 
for  their  unrighteousness.  They  now  know  that  typhoid 
comes  with  polluted  water  supply,  and  they  will  proceed  to 
purify  that  supply  at  once. 

It  will  be  the  same  way  with  us  Americans  in  regard  to 


Preface.  5 

death  from  starvation  when  the  capitalist  cannot  employ  us 
owing  to  over-production.  Some  years  ago  we  would  have 
quietly  starved,  thinking  that  such  events  as  panics  and  trade 
depressions  were  mysterious  events  sent  upon  man  by  a  divine 
providence,  into  whose  ways  it  was  profane  to  explore. 

We  now  know  differently.  We  know  that  a  trade  depres- 
sion is  caused  by  over-production,  which  in  turn  is  caused 
by  the  inability  of  the  workers  to  buy  with  their  low  wages 
what  they  produce.  We  know  that  low  wages  are  caused  by 
competition  between  workers — by  the  competitive  system.  We, 
therefore,  see  that  the  base  of  all  the  trouble  is  in  the  com- 
petitive system. 

My  editorials  are  built  upon  this  theory,  and  they  try  to 
show  how  by  the  substitution  of  the  co-operative  system — 
Socialism — we  can  solve  the  industrial  problem  now  threaten- 
ing us. 

GAYLOKD  WILSHIRE. 

Bishop,  Cal.,  Nov.  14,  1906. 


SOCIALISM:  A   RELIGION 

1  THINK  most  Socialists  would  agree  that  until  the  belief 
in  Socialism  gets  hold  of  the  hearts  and  emotions  of 
the  people  more  as  a  religion  than  as  an  understanding 
of  economic  events,  that  there  is  not  going  to  be  a  Social 
Eevolution. 

In  the  first  place  the  economics  of  Socialism  are  not  suffi- 
ciently easy  of  explanation  to  the  general  public  for  them 
to  be  understood  quickly  enough  for  us  to  gain  a  large  fol- 
lowing in  any  short  period  of  time. 

Men  usually  have  taken  up  a  political  faith  not  because  v 
they  have  arrived  at  it  from  a  course  of  logical  reasoning, 
but  because  they  have  gained  it  through  their  emotions  rather 
than  their  reason.  However,  this  admission  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  that  such  faith  necessarily  rests  on  a  false 
foundation.    It  may  or  may  not. 

Every  period  of  depression  in  this  country  has  awakened  a 
feeling  of  revolt  among  the  ones  affected  injuriously,  and  they 
have  sought  in  the  past  to  remedy  their  ills  by  a  variety  of 
panaceas. 

It  is  not  so  many  years  ago  when  faith  in  the  greenbacks 
was  prevailing,  and  it  seemed  to  many  of  us  the  great  and 
only  remedy  for  human  ills,  and  later  on  we  pinned  our 
faith  to  Mr.  Bryan  and  his  remedy  of  free  silver. 

To-day  there  is  a  marked  tendency  among  the  people  to 
place  their  faith  in  Socialism.  In  each  case  the  method  by 
which  the  greatest  part  of  the  believers  in  greenbacks,  free 
silver  and  Socialism  arrived  at  their  conclusions,  was  muchW' 
more  through  their  hearts  and  emotions  than  through 
their  brains  and  intellects.  But  because  we  have  been  wrong 
at  least  two  times  out  of  the  three  it  does  not  follow  that  now 
when  we  decide  upon  Socialism  that  we  must  be  again  wrong 
for  the  third  time. 

It  has  been  rightly  said  that  it  is  much  easier  to  sym- 
pathize with  suffering  than  happiness;  that  is,  where  ten 
men  will  sympathize  with  you,  wishing  for  Socialism  because 

7 


8  Wilshire  Editorials. 

it  will  alleviate  suffering,  there  is  one  man  who  will  go  with 
you  because  it  promises  a  world  of  happiness  and  beauty. 

The  Socialist  has  three  classes  of  men  to  whom  he  appeals : 
First,  the  large  mass  of  humanity  who  wish  a  change  because 
they  themselves  are  actually  suffering  from  poverty.  Second- 
ly, another  large  mass  of  people  who,  while  they  themselves 
are  not  suffering  from  poverty,  wish  to  see  others'  sufferings 
alleviated.  Third,  a  class,  and  a  very  much  smaller  class, 
are  those  who  picture  the  earth  made  into  one  divinely  beauti- 
ful garden  for  man  in  the  state  of  complete  happiness,  and 
this  ideal  makes  them  Socialists. 

The  best  Socialist  is  one  who  cannot  only  sympathize  with 
poverty  and  wish  to  alleviate  it,  but  who  has  the  imagination 
to  see  the  world  of  beauty  which  Socialism  promises  as  the 
goal  to  be  realized. 

In  this  day  of  machine  production  it  is  not  difficult  to 
show  that  we  can  produce  more  than  enough  to  banish  poverty. 
There  was  a  day  when  poverty  was  the  result  of  under-pro- 
duction, famine  and  war.  The  world  was  hungry,  because 
there  was  not  enough  to  eat.  To-day  hunger  and  want  exist 
in  civilized  countries  not  because  there  is  not  enough  pro- 
duced, but  because  we  don't  know  how  to  properly  distribute 
the  product.  If  we  could  properly  distribute  what  is  pro- 
duced without  at  the  same  time  checking  production,  there 
is  no  economist  but  would  admit  that  the  problem  of  poverty 
could  be  solved. 

Under  our  competitive  system  a  man  is  not  paid  according 
to  what  he  produces,  but  according  to  what  he  may  sell  his 
labor  for  in  the  competitive  market. 

The  employer  buys  labor  just  as  he  buys  any  other  material. 
If  he  is  making  shoes  he  figures  out  how  much  the  labor  cost 
is,  how  much  the  leather  cost,  how  much  his  rent  and  interest 
are,  etc.  He  cannot  pay  more  for  his  labor  than  his  com- 
petitors do,  any  more  than  he  could  pay  any  more  for  his 
leather  than  they  do — not  if  he  expects  to  sell  his  shoes 
against  them  in  competition. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  man  that  sells  his  labor,  just  as 
the  man  that  sells  his  leather  to  him,  must  sell  at  the  market 
rate,  otherwise  he  cannot  dispose  of  his  product,  his  labor. 

If  Jones  offers  his  labor  for  $2  a  day  to  the  employer, 
then  it  is  just  as  hopeless  for  Smith  to  try  to  sell  his  labor 


Socialism  :  A  Religion.  9 

for  $2.50  a  day,  as  it  would  be  for  Smith  to  ask  $2.50  a 
pound  for  leather,  which  the  employer  could  buy  for  $2  a 
pound.  If  there  are  plenty  of  men  who  are  willing  to  sell 
their  labor  at  $2  a  day  and  their  leather  at  $2  a  pound,  then, 
of  course,  the  price  of  leather  or  labor  cannot  rise  above  $2. 
There  are  always  many  men  out  of  employment  in  the  United 
States,  even  in  times  of  prosperity,  and,  therefore,  it  is  futile 
to  expect  that  wages  can  rise  very  much  above  what  the  un- 
employed ask  and  they  ask  just  about  enough  to  keep  them 
from  starving.  Hence  under  our  existing  conditions  remuner- 
ation to  the  workingman  must  always  remain  approximately 
at  the  mere  point  of  subsistence,  no  matter  how  much  more 
than  a  subsistence  the  worker  may  produce. 

The  reason  of  this  holding  down  of  wages  to  the  bare  sub- 
sistence point  is  the  competitive  system,  and  as  long  as  that 
system  exists,  the  workingman  cannot  expect  to  get  more 
than  at  best  a  mere  living.  Hence,  no  matter  how  much  we 
may  increase  in  productivity,  the  laborer  will  find  it  impossible 
to  share  in  the  increase. 

The  average  annual  wage  to-day  is  something  less  than 
$500  per  man;  while  the  annual  product  to-day  has  been 
estimated  at  about  $2,000;  but  whether  it  is  $2,000  or  $20,- 
000  makes  no  difference  as  far  as  the  laborer  is  concerned, 
because  under  the  competitive  system  he  cannot  possibly  get 
any  more  than  this  living  wage  of  $500. 

The  surplus  is  automatically  dumped  into  the  laps  of  the 
employing  class — into  the  hands  of  the  owners  of  the  ma- 
chinery of  production  and  the  land. 

Of  course  it  often  happens  that  some  individual  employer 
may  get  very  little,  if  any,  of  this  surplus.  He  may  have  to 
pay  all  his  gains  away  to  pay  his  landlord,  if  he  is  a  manu- 
facturer in  the  city  of  New  York,  or  if  he  is  a  farmer  in 
the  West  he  may  be  forced  to  pay  his  gains  to  the  railroad, 
and  so  on. 

The  employing  class — the  capitalist  class — utilize  this  auto- 
matic surplus  product  coming  from  the  laborer  in  two  ways. 
First,  they  spend  part  of  it,  and  second,  they  invest  part  of  it. 
We  may  pass  by  the  question  of  what  they  spend  as  being 
relatively  of  no  economic  importance,  unimportant  because  it 
is  not  a  channel  which  can  be  automatically  enlarged  in  times 
of  emergency. 


10  Wilshike  Editorials. 

It  is  the  investment  of  capital  in  savings  which  absorbs  a 
great  part  of  the  surplus  product  of  labor.  This  is  the  part 
which  goes  to  build  our  railroads,  our  manufactories  and  our 
industrial  undertakings  as  a  whole.  It  is  the  opportunity  for 
investment  of  savings  which  to-day  creates  and  is  responsible 
for  our  present  period  of  prosperity.  As  long  as  the  capitalist 
can  see  an  opportunity  for  the  profitable  investment  of  his 
surplus  he  will  invest,  and  this  means  that  he  will  continue 
to  employ  labor,  build  new  railroads,  etc.;  but  let  it  once 
come  to  the  point  when  there  is  no  profit  to  be  made  in  the 
further  building  of  railroads,  of  oil  refineries,  etc.,  then  you 
may  be  sure  that  he  will  stop  his  investing. 

This  is  the  future  the  Socialist  sees  is  sooner  or  later  going 
to  confront  the  capitalist  class,  viz.,  the  inability  to  invest 
their  surplus,  and  therefore  the  inability  to  employ  labor, 
and  therefore  a  great  unemployed  problem  must  ensue. 

It  might  be  thought  by  some  that  there  is  an  unlimited 
opportunity  for  the  building  of  new  machinery,  but  the  trust 
is  in  evidence  as  contradicting  such  an  assumption.  The 
trust  is  a  white  flag  hung  out  by  the  competitive  capitalistic 
armies  announcing  their  surrender  to  monopoly  and  to  com- 
bination.    Over-production  threatens  their  existence. 

But  the  trust  is  only  a  temporary  remedy,  for  we  must 
remember  that  all  our  industrial  equipment  is  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  goods  to  be  distributed  to  the  working  class. 

The  working  class  under  our  original  analysis  have  only 
about  $500  a  year  to  buy  the  product,  and  as  under  our  com- 
petitive system  this  $500  cannot  be  increased,  it  is  not  at  all 
difficult  to  see  how  man  with  modern  machinery  can  produce 
more  than  he  can  buy.  Therefore,  the  wonder  is  not  that  we 
are  threatened  with  over-production  to-day,  but  that  we  were 
not  overwhelmed  with  it  years  ago. 

However,  the  technical  improvements  in  production  have 
been  so  revolutionary  that  no  sooner  has  one  piece  of  ma- 
chinery been  installed  than  another  has  been  invented  to 
take  its  place,  and  the  first  piece  has  been  torn  down  and  the 
new  installed,  thus  giving  employment  to  labor.  But  this 
building  of  new  machinery  to  supersede  old  machinery  has 
at  last  come  to  a  stop,  and  the  trust  is  the  sign  that  this 
climax  has  been  reached. 

Two  years  ago  we  were  threatened  with  a  period  of  great 


Socialism  :  A  Religion.  11 

depression,  but  along  came  the  Russo-Japanese  war  to  dis- 
tribute goods  in  great  quantity  and  at  the  same  time  draw 
more  than  a  million  men  from  the  labor  army  of  the  world, 
and  the  result  of  this  was  a  tremendous  increased  demand 
for  products  in  Western  Europe  and  the  United  States.  The 
San  Francisco  earthquake  will  have  a  tendency  to  prolong 
the  stimulus  given  by  the  war.  The  effects  of  this  war  are 
rapidly  wearing  off,  however,  and  it  will  not  be  many  months 
before  there  is  a  great  fall  in  prices  and  a  great  cessation  of 
the  demand  for  labor.  This  means  a  great  unemployed  prob- 
lem and  means  that  this  nation,  now  in  its  heyday  of  pros- 
perity, is  soon  to  be  confronted  with  a  terrible  economic  crisis. 
In  the  previous  periods  of  depression  we  looked  to  superficial 
remedies  for  relief.  We  were  like  a  quack  who  would  attempt 
to  cure  smallpox  by  treating  the'  eruption.  V 

The  Socialist  sees  that  it  is  useless  to  try  to  alleviate 
poverty  as  long  as  you  let  rest  the  cause  of  poverty,  viz.,  the 
competitive  system.  He  would  abolish  the  competitive  system 
and  substitute  the  co-operative  system,  which  merely  means 
the  distribution  of  products  to  men  as  they  may  produce 
rather  than  distributing  as  little  as  they  can  live  upon.  To 
do  this  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  own  the  machinery  of  pro- 
duction ;  that  is,  it  would  be  absurd  for  us  to  try  to  establish 
the  co-operative  commonwealth  if  we  should  leave  the  trusts 
and  railroads  in  the  hands  of  the  Gould- Vanderbilt-Harriman- 
Rockefeller-Astor  Company. 

It  is  necessary  for  the  people  as  a  whole  to  own  and  operate 
these  great  machines  of  production  and  to  distribute  the 
product  to  ourselves  as  workers,  not  upon  the  basis  of  how 
little  we  can  use,  but  upon  the  basis  of  what  we  produce.  If 
by  virtue  of  modern  machinery  we  can  produce  one  hundred 
times  the  product  we  can  without  machinery,  then  let  us  have 
a  product  one  hundredfold  greater  instead  of  taking  only 
one-tenth  of  the  product  and  allowing  ninety  per  cent,  of  it 
to  rest  in  an  unused  accumulated  heap  in  the  hands  of  the 
capitalists  and  justifying  them  in  saying  that  there  is  over- 
production and  therefore  no  opportunity  to  give  us  work. 

I  have  shortly  sketched  the  economic  basis  of  Socialism, 
and  if  it  be  difficult  of  understanding  to  many  readers  my 
original  contention  that  Socialism  will  not  gain  the  day 
through  an  appeal  to  the  understanding  as  much  as  an  ap- 


12  Wilshire  Editorials. 

peal  to  the  heart  will  be  justified.  We  can  all  feel  for  the 
man  that  is  suffering  from  hunger,  and  we  can  all  see  the 
absurdity  of  his  being  hungry  merely  because  there  is  so 
much  bread  that  there  is  no  opportunity  to  hire  him  to  either 
raise  the  wheat  or  to  grind  the  flour  or  to  bake  bread. 

Even  in  this  present  period  of  "prosperity"  the  growth  of 
the  Socialistic  undercurrent  of  sentiment  is  apparent  to  every 
one,  not  only  in  the  increased  Socialistic  vote  in  all  parts  of 
the  world,  but  particularly  is  it  exhibited  in  the  current 
literature  of  the  day,  not  merely  the  literature  of  exposures 
of  graft,  but  the  literature  such  as  is  produced  by  such  as 
our  Gorkys,  our  Tolstois,  our  Zolas,  our  Londons,  our  Sin- 
clairs  and  other  men  of  genius,  who  are  voicing  the  cry  of 
the  disinherited. 

It  is  impossible  for  a  man  even  though  he  be  in  perfect 
health,  with  the  exception,  say,  of  a  crushed  finger,  to  be 
happy  until  the  pain  from  his  finger  has  departed. 

Humanity  is  just  as  much  a  living  organism  as  is  a  man's 
body  a  living  organism.  We  cannot  have  a  single  member  of 
our  great  organization  of  humanity  hurt  without  all  of  us  feel- 
ing the  pain,  just  as  the  man  with  the  crushed  finger  feels  pain 
throughout  his  body,  although  only  his  finger  is  affected. 
Even  the  most  hard-hearted  of  men  will  admit  that  he  could 
not  sit  down  to  eat  his  dinner  with  any  pleasure  and  have 
alongside  of  him  a  hungry  man  who  because  of  poverty 
could  not  share  his  food.  Fundamentally,  our  instinct  is 
to  relieve  the  pain  of  our  brother  men  just  as  much  as  it  is 
for  us  to  relieve  the  pain  in  our  crushed  finger. 

Socialism  recognizes  this  emotional  interdependence  of  all 
humanity,  and  calls  upon  it  to  further  a  movement  to  relieve 
all  humanity  of  all  its  pain,  viz.,  its  poverty. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  mere  relieving  humanity  of  the 
pain  of  poverty  is  only  the  first  step  toward  putting  it  in 
position  to  properly  enjoy  life.  The  man  with  the  injured 
finger  does  not  look  upon  the  end  of  life  to  be  relieved  of 
pain.  His  end  of  life  is  to  enjoy  happiness,  and  that  is  a 
positive  condition  and  not  a  mere  negative  one.  A  man  has 
the  greatest  enjoyment  in  the  exercises  of  his  functions,  first 
of  the  physical,  and  then  of  the  intellectual  and  spiritual. 

With  poverty  abolished  from  the  earth,  men  will  be  re- 
lieved of  the  rjecessity  of  paying  attention  to  material  needs 


Socialism  :  A  Eeligion.  13 

or  at  least  the  attention  necessary  to  be  paid  will  be  incon- 
sequential. They  will  devote  themselves  to  living  their  spir- 
itual lives,  and  at  last  the  souls  of  all  men  will  really  live. 

Humanity  then  will  become  a  race  of  gods  and  every  man 
will  then  be  fit  to  be  in  communication  with  God.  Eeligion 
in  the  broader  and  higher  sense  is  the  relating  of  man  to 
the  universe,  and  Socialism  is  merely  the  path  to  this  great 
end. 

The  poets  and  artists  are  merely  men  who  best  experience 
an  emotional  contact  with  all  humanity  and  who  can  pre- 
cipitate their  emotions  in  visible  shape — in  their  poems  and 
statues — that  all  may  see  and  enjoy.  When  Socialism  comes, 
all  men  will  not  only  feel  themselves  individually  happy,  but 
will  also  feel  themselves  perfectly  related  to  a  happy  hu- 
manity, and  that  humanity  as  a  whole  will  feel  its  relation 
to  every  individual  man.  Then  all  men  will  be  poets  and 
artists,  and  then  indeed  will  be  the  Birth  of  the  Superman. 

The  greatest  exaltation  that  can  come  to  the  spirit  of  man 
is  to  realize  himself  at  one  with  the  universe. 

This  can  only  come  when  men  are  as  perfectly  related  to 
each  other  and  to  humanity  as  a  whole  as  are  the  cells  in  the 
living  body  related  to  each  other  and  to  the  body  as  a  whole. 

Men  must  be  united  to  humanity  in  an  organization  at 
once  perfectly  democratic  and  perfectly  autocratic. 

All  humanity  will  be  at  one  with  God  and  every  man  will 
be  a  god. 

This  is  the  glorious  ideal  which  spurs  on  the  Socialist  and 
which  enthuses  him  with  a  religious  ecstasy  comparable  with 
no  emotion  which  has  ever  hitherto  stirred  the  world. 


14  Wilshike  Editorials. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  TRUST 

THE  real  danger  of  the  Trust  exists  not  in  what  it  is  to- 
#  day,  but  in  what  it  promises  for  to-morrow.  Most 
writers  on  the  Trust  have  confined  themselves  too 
much  to  expatiating  upon  its  most  palpable  features.  Anyone 
can  see  the  menace  to  our  institutions  involved  in  the  change 
from  industry  conducted  on  a  competitive  democratic  system 
to  a  monopolistic  autocratic  system.  Anyone  can  see  the  men- 
ace to  labor  if  there  is  but  one  employer  instead  of  a  hundred. 
Anyone  can  see  that  when  the  production  of  a  commodity  is 
controlled  by  a  Trust  that  prices  may  be  put  up  to  exorbitant 
figures.  All  these  points  are  so  obvious  that  it  is  a  waste  of 
time  calling  attention  to  them. 

Not  only  is  time  wasted  running  over  and  over  again  the 
obvious  and  manifest  dangers  of  the  Trust,  but  the  remedies 
suggested  for  its  elimination  are  usually  so  absurd  that  their 
proposal  constitutes  another  waste  of  time. 

It  is  the  indication  of  what  is  to  come  that  constitutes  the 
dangerous  significance  of  the  appearance  of  the  Trust,  for  the 
Trust  signifies  the  near  approach  of  a  tremendous  Unemployed 
Problem. 

A  great  change  in  public  opinion  regarding  the  Trust  issue 
has  occurred  in  the  last  few  years.  It  is  not  so  very  long  ago 
when  all  our  public  men  and  newspapers  had  but  one  solu- 
tion for  the  problem:  "The  Trust  must  be  destroyed,"  they 
said.  To-day  nobody  in  his  right  senses  looks  to  the  possibility 
of  the  destruction  of  Trusts,  for  Trusts  are  now  admitted  to 
be  the  inevitable  result  of  our  competitive  economic  system. 

I  do  not  propose  to  devote  any  great  attention  to  a  demon- 
stration of  the  inevitability  of  the  Trust,  as  I  regard  such 
a  task  as  practically  superfluous.  The  point  I  care  more  to 
dwell  upon  is  not  the  inevitability  of  the  Trust,  which  will  be 
generally  agreed  ur>on,  but  upon  the  impossibility,  in  an  econo- 
mic sense,  of  the  permanence  of  the  Trust.  Let  me  say  at  once, 
before  I  raise  false  hopes  in  the  breast  of  the  classical  econo- 
mist, that  I  do  not  propose  to  show  that  Trusts  must  fall 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  15 

to  pieces  of  their  own  weight  and  that  competition  must  be  re- 
stored owing  to  the  entrance  of  fresh  capital  into  the  field  at- 
tempted to  be  monopolized.  That  would  be  an  extremely  fool- 
ish position  to  take  after  having  asserted  the  inevitability  of 
the  Trust. 

Neither  am  I  attempting  a  glittering  paradox  by  first  as- 
serting the  inevitability  of  the  Trust  and  in  the  next  breath  de- 
claring its  impossibility.  The  theory  which  I  shall  attempt  to 
demonstrate  is  that  the  natural  and  inevitable  evolution  of  our 
industrial  system  is  from  competition  under  private  ownership 
to  monopoly  under  private  ownership,  and  from  monopoly  un- 
der private  ownership  to  monopoly  under  public  ownership.  In 
declaring  the  impossibility  of  the  permanence  of  private  mon- 
opoly, I  speak  simply  from  the  standpoint  of  the  political 
economist,  and  I  leave  out  of  consideration  political  and  in- 
dustrial changes  which  may  or  may  not  be  brought  about  by 
the  uprising  of  a  long-suffering  and  indignant  people. 

Public  ownership  of  industry  might  be  brought  about  next 
month  if  the  people  had  a  sufficient  desire  to  effect  it.  How- 
ever, it  is  not  to  the  "might  be"  I  appeal,  but  to  the  "must 
be."  I  shall  endeavor  to  prove  that  public  ownership — So- 
cialism— is  not  inevitable  because  it  is  desirable,  but  because 
it  comes  into  the  category  of  the  inexorably  necessary.  My 
first  task  will  be  to  prove  the  necessity  of  the  Trust,  my  next 
to  prove  the  necessity  of  Socialism. 

The  Trust  arose  from  the  desire  of  the  manufacturers  to 
protect  themselves  from  over-production  and  the  consequent 
mad  and  suicidal  struggle  to  dispose  of  their  surplus  stock. 

Over-production  arises  because  our  productive  capacity  has 
been  developed  to  the  highest  degree  with  labor-saving  ma- 
chinery operated  by  steam  and  electricity,  while  our  consump- 
tive capacity  remains  stunted  by  the  competitive  wage  system 
which  limits  the  laborers — who  constitute  the  bulk  of  our 
consumers — to  the  mere  necessities  of  life.  I  will  not  tire  the 
reader  with  long  statistics  exhibiting  the  enormous  strides  that 
have  taken  place  in  the  productive  capacity  of  men,  due  to 
modern  machinery,  nor  will  I  harrow  his  soul  with  the  well- 
worn  details  of  the  narrow,  sordid  life  of  squalor  lived  by  mil- 
lions of  our  workers.  It  is  patent  to  everyone  that  the  wage 
worker  of  to-day  consumes  but  little  if  any  more  of  the  neces- 
sities of  life  than  did  his  grandfather  of  fifty  years  ago. 


16  Wilshire  Editorials. 

The  consumption,  per  capita,  of  beef,  flour,  potatoes,  coffee, 
tobacco,  wool,  etc.,  has  varied  little,  if  any,  in  the  last  fifty 
years.  Every  student  of  history  knows  in  a  general  way  that 
the  ordinary  laborers  of  this  country  fifty  or  one  hundred 
years  ago  lived  in  a  fair  degree  of  comfort,  were  warmly  clad 
in  their  homespun  and  comfortably  housed  in  their  log  cabins. 
The  best  proof  of  this  is  their  notoriously  fine  physical  devel- 
opment, their  longevity  and  freedom  from  disease.  The  aver- 
age family  was  from  ten  to  fourteen,  for  neither  the  husband 
nor  the  wife  felt  the  dread  of  an  addition  to  the  family  that  is 
so  characteristic  of  to-day.  Eace  suicide  is  purely  a  modern 
thing. 

I  do  not  think  any  fair-minded  person  will  claim  that  the 
modern  day  laborer  on  his  $1.50  per  day,  and  very  uncertain 
of  that,  living  in  a  city,  wearing  shoddy  clothes,  breathing 
sewer  gas,  eating  tuberculous  beef,  drinking  typhoid  bacilli  in 
his  milk  and  fusel  oil  in  his  whisky,  and  absorbing  intellectual 
garbage  from  his  yellow  journal,  has  had  any  great  augmenta- 
tion in  the  pleasures  of  life  through  the  inventions  of  the  mar- 
velous nineteenth  century. 

But  it  may  be  pertinently  asked,  "Where  has  disappeared 
this  immense  stream  of  products  that  is  the  result  of  the  labor 
of  the  nation  applied  to  modern  machinery?" 

Taking  the  product  of  labor  as  a  whole,  it  flows  into  two 
broad  channels,  one  to  the  capitalists,  the  holders  of  wealth, 
and  one  to  the  workers.  The  ordinary  workers  at  best  merely 
get  enough  to  keep  them  in  efficient  condition.  Part  of  the 
workers,  the  aristocracy  of  labor,  the  trade-unionists  and 
skilled  labor  generally,  the  proletarians  who  sell  their  brains 
rather  than  their  hands,  may  get  something  above  the  mere 
necessities;  but,  broadly  speaking,  competition  prevents  any 
great  augmentation  of  the  share  that  goes  to  labor  beyond  that 
of  the  mere  necessities  of  life. 

The  whole  of  the  remainder  of  the  product  of  labor  falls 
automatically  into  the  lap  of  the  holders  of  wealth  simply  as 
a  rent,  with  no  economic  necessity  on  their  part  of  doing 
anything  in  return  for  it. 

Witness  the  enormous  incomes  of  the  Duchess  of  Marl- 
borough and  the  Countess  Castellane,  representing  abroad  the 
Vanderbilt  and  Gould  wealth,  and  discover  if  you  can  any  re- 
turn they  may  make  to  the  American  people.    It  is  possible 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  17 

that  somebody  might  strain  his  imagination  into  believing  that 
the  Astors,  the  Rockefellers  and  the  Vanderbilts,  who  between 
them  have  an  income  something  like  $200,000,000  per  year, 
perform  some  economic  good  in  return,  but  I  doubt  if  their 
most  generous  retainer  would  say  that  a  hundred  thousand  a 
year  each  would  not  be  sufficient  compensation  considering 
that  our  college  professors  get  on  an  average  less  than  $1,000. 

The  stream  of  wealth  flowing  into  the  coffers  of  the  rich 
flows  out  again  divided  into  two  streams,  one  of  which  goes  to 
satisfy  what  they  are  pleased  to  regard  as  their  necessities  of 
existence,  a  wonderful  conglomerate  of  beefsteaks,  truffles, 
champagne,  automobiles,  private  cars,  steam  yachts,  golf  balls, 
picture  galleries,  food  and  clothing  for  their  servants,  etc.,  all 
classified  under  the  general  head  of  consumables  and  paid  for 
by  "spent"  money. 

The  other  division  of  the  stream  is  what  is  termed  "saved" 
money,  and  goes  into  the  building  of  new  machinery  of  pro- 
duction, new  railroadSi  canals,  iron  furnaces,  mills,  etc.  It  is 
this  last  channel  for  the  "saved"  money  for  investments  that 
has  been  the  great  sluiceway  for  carrying  off  the  surplus  pro- 
duct and  avoiding  a  plethora  in  our  industrial  system. 

Notwithstanding  that  the  prodigality  of  the  American  rich 
in  unbounded  luxury  is  the  wonder  of  the  age,  still  the  per- 
centage of  the  very  rich  is  so  small  that  all  their  efforts  in  lav- 
ish "spending"  have  had  little  effect — economically — com- 
pared with  the  wealth  they  are  forced  to  "save,"  owing  to  lack 
of  ingenuity  in  discovering  new  modes  for  "spending."  There 
is  a  grim  satisfaction  in  the  reflection  that  the  "saving"  capa- 
city of  the  nation  is  increased  by  the  concentration  of  wealth. 
Thrift  is  no  longer  a  difficult  virtue  when  it  requires  more 
labor  and  pains  to  "spend"  than  it  does  to  "save,"  and  this  is 
the  predicament  of  the  very  rich  Americans. 

No  man  cares  for  two  dinners,  and  when  Mr.  Rockefeller 
with  his  $100,000,000  a  year  income  "spends"  over  a 
thousand  dollars  per  day  on  himself  and  his  household,  he  finds 
it  both  pleasanter  and  easier  to  "save"  the  remainder  than  to 
lay  awake  nights  devising  bizarre  ways  to  "spend"  it.  How- 
ever, as  .the  condition  of  affairs  now  is  in  the  business  world, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  it  is  about  as  difficult  for  him  to 
discover  channels  to  invest  his  savings  as  it  is  to  invent  ways 
to  "spend"  it.    I  pity  him.     Some  thirty  years  or  more  ago 


18  Wilshire  Editorials. 

when  Bockefeller  went  into  the  business  of  refining  oil,  he  waa 
not  then  bothered  with  the  problem  of  investing  his  profits. 
First,  because  they  were  not  then  so  large  as  to  be  cumber- 
some; and,  secondly,  because  the  oil  business  itself,  notwith- 
standing sharp  competition,  was  a  fairly  profitable  one,  and  he 
had  then  a  natural  place  there  to  reinvest  his  earnings.  How- 
ever, others  in  the  oil  business,  his  competitors,  also  reinvested 
their  earnings  in  the  oil  business.  Finally  the  capacity  for  re- 
fining oil  became  greater  than  the  market  demanded.  Each 
refiner  was  bound  to  get  rid  of  his  surplus  product  at  any 
price,  and  the  price  of  the  surplus  determined  the  price  of  the 
whole.  Prices  sank  to  a  ruinously  low  figure  and  bankruptcy 
stared  them  in  the  face.  Over-production  must  be  curtailed. 
The  Standard  Oil  Trust  was  born. 

All  this  has  been  brought  out  time  and  again  in  the  many 
federal  and  state  inquiries  into  the  Standard  Oil  Trust. 
Bockefeller  completely  proved  his  case  in  the  Congressional 
investigation  of  1888,  that  competition  was  ruining  his  busi- 
ness and  that  combination  had  become  an  absolute  necessity. 
In  fact,  there  has  never  been  any  questioning  of  his  testimony 
establishing  these  facts.  The  politicians,  however,  thought  it 
was  a  chance  to  make  political  capital,  and  urged  the  de- 
struction of  the  Oil  Trust,  not  attempting  in  the  least  to  con- 
trovert Rockefeller's  statement  of  facts  showing  that  combi- 
nation was  an  absolute  necessity.  But  notwithstanding  the 
efforts  of  the  politicians  to  overturn  the  laws  of  nature  and 
make  water  run  up  hill,  Bockefeller  persisted  in  combining 
and  making  money  instead  of  following  their  plan  of  compe- 
ting and  losing  money. 

The  only  reason  that  capitalists  in  the  oil  business  kept  on 
investing  money  when  they  knew  there  was  already  too  much 
money  in  that  business  was  because  the  opportunities  for  the 
investment  of  capital  in  other  industries  promised  no  better 
returns. 

Capital,  like  water,  seeks  its  own  level.  When  no  Trust  is 
on  guard  to  intimidate  would-be  investors,  abnormally  large 
profits  will  induce  the  flow  of  fresh  capital  to  any  business  un- 
til profits  are  reduced  to  the  normal.  Hence,  as  it  may  be 
inferred,  if  capital  was  investing  in  oil  refineries,  notwith- 
standing the  unpromising  outlook,  it  was  doing  so  because 
other  businesses  were  in  the  same  state  of  plethora  and  could 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  19 

offer  no  better  inducements.  That  this  was  true  is  fully  sub- 
stantiated by  the  subsequent  formation  of  trusts  in  other  lines 
of  manufacture  to  prevent  the  very  same  plethora  of  capital 
that  had  been  affecting  the  oil  business.  The  great  industrial 
undertakings  of  the  world  are  practically  finished  as  far  as 
present  developments  indicate. 

As  the  late  David  A.  Wells  says  in  his  "Kecent  Economic 
Changes" :  "It  would  seem  indeed  as  if  the  world  during  all 
the  years  since  the  inception  of  civilization  has  been  working 
upon  the  line  of  equipment  for  industrial  effort —  inventing 
and  perfecting  tools  and  machinery,  building  workshops  and 
factories,  and  devising  instrumentalities  for  the  easy  commu- 
nication of  persons  and  thoughts ;  that  this  equipment  having 
at  last  been  made  ready,  the  work  of  using  it  has,  for  the  first 
time  in  our  day  and  generation,  fairly  begun;  and  also  that 
every  community  under  prior  or  existing  conditions  of  use  and 
consumption,  is  becoming  saturated,  as  it  were,  with  its  re- 
sults." 

There  is  no  country  in  which  the  industrial  machinery  is  so 
much  over-built  as  in  the  United  States.  We  are  saturated 
with  capital  and  can  absorb  no  more.  In  normal  conditions 
the  machinery  of  production  will  produce  more  in  three  days 
than  we  can  consume  in  a  week.  The  present  boom  is  re- 
cognized by  all  as  destined  to  be  of  a  most  ephemeral  nature. 

As  a  general  law  in  economics  it  may  be  stated  that  the  ten- 
dency to  combination  increases  as  the  number  of  competitors 
decreases  and  the  amount  of  capital  for  each  competing  plant 
increases. 

In  1890  there  were  910  establishments  manufacturing  agri- 
cultural implements,  with  a  capital  of  145  millions.  In  1900 
we  have  but  715  establishments,  although  the  total  capitaliza- 
tion has  increased  to  157  millions. 

In  establishments  manufacturing  salt  the  number  has  de- 
creased during  the  past  ten  census  years  from  200  to  159, 
while  the  capitalization  has  increased  over  100  per  cent.,  from 
13  millions  to  27  millions. 

Slaughtering  establishments  have  decreased  in  number  from 
1.118  to  921,  while  their  total  capitalization  has  increased 
from  116  millions  to  189  millions. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  three  of  the  above  businesses  are  each 
in  the  hands  of  a  Trust. 


20  Wilshire  Editorials. 

Perhaps  the  most  striking  of  the  returns  is  that  from  the 
carriage  and  wagon  factories.  These  have  fallen  in  number 
from  8,614  to  7,632,  while  at  the  same  time  their  capitalization 
has  increased  from  104  millions  to  118  millions.  But  this  is 
not  the  point  that  is  so  especially  noteworthy.  The  number  of 
wage-earners  has  decreased  from  64,259  to  62,540,  and  the 
number  of  "salaried"  employees — clerks,  salesmen,  etc.,  is 
now  actually  less  than  one-half  what  it  was  in  1890.  They 
now  number  4,311  as  against  9,194  in  1890.  This  cutting  off 
of  "salaried"  employees  means  a  saving,  according  to  the  cen- 
sus, of  $3,459,289  a  year  to  the  carriage  makers. 

The  figures  from  the  flour  mills  also  show  the  same  trend 
toward  the  elimination  of  superfluous  employees.  The  total 
capital  employed  in  flour  milling  has  increased  in  the  last  ten 
years  from  208  millions  to  218  millions,  but  the  number  of 
wage-earners  has  decreased  from  47,403  to  37,073.  "Salaried" 
employees  have  been  reduced  from  16,078  to  5,790,  and  the 
millers  are  paying  out  $3,492,590  less  per  annum  for  salaries 
to-day  than  ten  years  ago. 

As  has  been  delineated,  the  volume  of  production  has  been 
constantly  rising  owing  to  the  development  of  modern  ma- 
chinery. There  were  two  main  channels  to  carry  off  these  prod- 
ucts. One  channel  carrying  off  the  product  destined  to  be 
consumed  by  the  workers,  and  the  other  channel  carrying  all 
the  remainder  to  the  rich.  The  worker's  channel  is  in  rock- 
bound  banks  that  cannot  enlarge  owing  to  the  competitive 
wage  system  preventing  wages  rising  pro  rata  with  increased 
efficiency.  Wages  are  based  upon  cost  of  living,  and  not  upon 
efficiency  of  labor.  The  miner  in  the  poor  mine  gets  the  same 
wages  as  the  miner  in  the  adjoining  rich  mine.  The  owner  of 
the  rich  mine  gets  the  advantage — not  his  laborer.  The  chan- 
nel which  conveys  the  goods  destined  to  supply  the  rich  is  it- 
self again  divided  into  two  streams.  One  stream  carries  off 
what  the  rich  "spend"  on  themselves  for  the  necessities  and 
luxuries  of  life.  The  other  is  simply  an  "overflow"  stream, 
carrying  off  their  "savings."  The  channel  for  spending,  i.  e., 
the  amount  wasted  by  the  rich  in  luxuries,  may  broaden  some- 
what, but  owing  to  the  small  number  of  those  rich  enough  to 
indulge  in  whims  it  can  never  be  greatly  enlarged,  and  at  any 
rate  it  bears  such  a  small  relative  proportion  to  the  channel  for 
investment  that  in  no  event  can  much  hope  of  avoiding  a  flood 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  21 

of  capital  be  looked  for  that  way.  The  rich  will  never  be  so 
ingenious  as  to  spend  enough  to  prevent  over-production.  The 
great  safety  overflow  channel  which  has  been  continuously 
more  and  more  widened  and  deepened  to  carry  off  the  ever- 
increasing  flood  of  new  capital  is  the  channel  which  carries 
the  savings  of  the  rich,  and  now  this  is  not  only  suddenly 
found  to  be  incapable  of  further  enlargement,  but  actually 
seems  to  be  in  the  process  of  being  dammed  up. 

And  why  not  ?  Man's  material  wants  are  limited,  no  mat- 
ter how  unlimited  may  be  his  spiritual  ones.  If  one  bridge  is 
sufficient  to  carry  me  from  New  York  to  Brooklyn,  then  two 
will  be  a  surplus.  When  one  car  line  is  built  on  Broadway, 
there  is  no  room  nor  necessity  for  more. 

It  is  superfluous  to  point  out  that  with  wages  determined  by 
competition  a  workingman  can  create  no  effective  demand  for 
the  satisfaction  of  his  spiritual  wants.  He  is  lucky  enough 
to  get  the  necessities  of  life  and  is  not  fool  enough  to  refuse  a 
wage  because  it  does  not  afford  luxuries  when  he  sees  a  man 
in  waiting  behind  him  only  too  willing  and  anxious  to  take  his 
place  if  he  should  give  up  his  job. 

Let  us  cast  a  broad  sympathetic  look  over  the  surface  of  the 
United  States,  with  the  perplexed  eye  of  a  man  with  a  million 
dollars  or  more  looking  for  a  promising  and  safe  investment. 
Would  he  care  to  build  another  transcontinental  railway?  I 
think  not.  There  are  too  many  already.  Would  he  care  to  go 
into  wheat-growing?  Not  if  he  is  not  in  need  of  a  guardian. 
One  year  it  pays,  then  for  the  next  three  years  there  is  either 
no  crop  on  account  of  drought,  or  there  is  low  price  owing  to 
over-production,  and  the  wheat-grower  has  no  chance  of  form- 
ing a  trust.  Too  many  farmers  to  combine;  it  is  difficult 
enough  to  get  ten  men  into  a  combination,  but  when  you  have 
10,000  it  is  manifestly  an  impossibility. 

Is  there  one  single  industry  which  he  could  find  that  is  of  a 
nature  to  warrant  the  investment  of  a  large  capital  that  is  not 
palpably  over-done?  As  for  smaller  industries  there  is  a  con- 
census of  opinion  in  the  business  world  that  there  are  practi- 
cally none  promising  good  returns.  They  manage  to  exist, 
like  the  mice  in  a  granary,  escaping  destruction  owing  to  their 
insignificance. 

The  channel  which  carries  the  surplus  wealth  for  the  un- 
building of  new  industries  we  can  imagine  sub-dividing  itself 


22  Wilshire  Editorials. 

into  a  many-branched  delta,  each  mouth  furnishing  the  supply 
for  a  particular  industry.  When  there  was  no  over-supply  of 
capital  in  an  industry  the  capitalists  controlling  the  branch 
of  the  delta  flowing  to  their  industry  used  all  efforts  to  widen 
and  deepen  the  channel.  When  finally  they  had  all  the  capital 
they  wished,  they  formed  their  trust,  and  the  process  was  re- 
versed. It  was  as  if  they  had  thrown  a  dam  across  the  en- 
trance to  their  branch  and  turned  the  stream  back  into  the 
main  stream  to  be  distributed  through  the  other  mouths 
into  the  other  industries. 

With  this  metaphor  before  you  it  is  easy  to  see  that  with 
the  successive  closings  of  the  mouths  by  the  successive  trusts 
so  much  the  greater  becomes  the  supply  for  the  other  mouths 
and  so  much  the  sooner  does  it  become  imperative  that  the 
capitalists  in  the  other  industries  throw  across  their  protective 
dam.  As  in  a  real  river,  so  with  our  imaginary  river,  when  a 
number  of  mouths  are  dammed  up,  the  river  no  longer  can 
find  a  sufficient  exit  through  the  remaining  mouths,  and  it  has 
a  strong  tendency  to  overflow  the  dams,  which  will  require 
strengthening  if  they  are  to  remain  secure. 

Each  new  trust  that  is  born  is  a  menace  to  the  security  of  all 
previous  trusts. 

Rockefeller,  with  his  enormous  surplus  income,  cannot  find 
room  to  invest  in  his  own  confessedly  overdone  oil  business. 
He  is  the  modern  Alexander  the  Great  of  our  industrial  field, 
sighing  for  more  worlds  to  conquer.  He  has  already  taken 
possession  of  the  electric  light  and  gas  plants  of  New  York 
City.  He  is  in  control  of  the  iron  industry.  He  owns  the 
Lake  Superior  mines  and  the  lake  transportation  service.  He 
will  soon  be  in  complete  control  of  the  railways  of  the  Uni- 
ted States.  He  is  about  to  control  the  copper  mines  of  the 
United  States.  He  is  in  control  of  the  largest  banks  in  New 
York.  When  Rockefeller  gets  control  of  an  industry  the 
temptations  for  outside  capital  to  compete  against  him  are 
not  overpowering. 

The  proof  that  Trusts  are  necessary  as  a  protection  against 
the  rising  flood  of  capital  is  simply  overwhelming,  both  in 
theory  and  in  fact.  It  seems  most  palpable  that  every  in- 
dustry in  this  country  must  in  time  fall  into  the  power  of  the 
Trust. 

The  Trust  with  its  enormous  capital  not  only  gives  our 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  23 

capitalists  better  facilities  for  competition  with  foreigners  in 
foreign  neutral  markets,  but  by  damming  up  the  old  and 
natural  domestic  channels  for  investment  is  actually  forcing 
them  to  cut  out  new  channels  for  investment  abroad. 

The  present  immense  flood  of  surplus  capital  in  the  United 
States  is  shown  by  the  treasury  balance  showing  the  greatest 
stock  of  gold  on  hand  ever  known.  The  banks  are  over-laden 
with  money.  American  money  is  entering  into  the  world's 
markets  as  a  buyer  of  bonds  of  foreign  nations. 

Chauncey  Depew  says  that  we  are  producing  2,000  million 
dollars  worth  of  goods  every  year  more  than  the  home  market 
can  absorb;  that  we  must  extend  our  foreign  markets  if  we 
wish  to  avoid  a  great  Unemployed  Problem  arising  from  our 
domestic  manufacturers  being  unable  to  hire  men  to  make 
goods  that  cannot  be  sold.  That  American  capitalists  fully 
realize  this  is  shown  by  their  aggressive  entry  into  foreign 
manufacturing  fields. 

The  late  President  McKinley  only  a  month  or  so  before  his 
death  made  a  speech  declaring  that  foreign  markets  must  be 
obtained  by  reciprocity  treaties  and  that  this  was  absolutely 
essential  to  our  further  industrial  progress. 

President  Roosevelt  also  declares  that  we  must  have  an  out- 
let for  our  productions  abroad  as  the  domestic  market  no 
longer  suffices.  All  this  is  exactly  in  line  with  my  argument, 
as  to  premises,  but  I  disagree  as  to  remedy. 

Foreign  trade  can  never  solve  the  problem  of  overproduc- 
tion. In  the  first  place  most  of  the  goods  that  the  foreigner 
formerly  gave  us  in  exchange  for  our  domestic  productions 
can  now  be  made  both  cheaper  and  better  at  home  than  abroad, 
and  therefore  we  do  not  now  find  the  same  advantage  in 
foreign  trade  that  we  did. 

There  was  a  day  when  we  traded  off  our  wheat  for  English 
steel  rail,  but  we  can  now  make  steel  rail  cheaper  than  Eng- 
land. We  still  have  our  wheat  to  sell  but  we  no  longer  find  it 
profitable  to  take  steel  rail  in  exchange.  As  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  circular  recently  issued  by  the  Silk  Association 
of  America,  the  United  States  is  no  longer  dependent  upon 
France  or  any  other  country  for  its  silk  goods,  and  hence  an- 
other important  item  of  foreign  exchange  is  about  to  lose 
its  power  as  a  purchasing  agent  of  our  products : 

"The  great  equipment  of  the  silk  mills  in  machinery  now, 


24  Wilshire  Editorials. 

say  36,000  broad  looms  and  7,000  ribbon  looms  and  all  run  by 
power,  is  evidence  sufficient  that  the  domestic  silk  manufac- 
tures are  fully  up  to  the  demand  of  the  consuming  markets 
of  the  United  States." 

In  fact,  the  foreign  goods  that  can  be  profitably  imported 
into  our  country  are  getting  narrowed  down  to  agricultural 
productions  from  the  tropics.  It  is  evident  that  the  importation 
of  such  goods  cannot  offset  our  balance  of  exports.  Last  year 
we  exported  600  million  dollars  worth  of  commodities  more 
than  we  imported.  After  taking  account  of  the  money  spent 
by  American  tourists  abroad,  remittances  for  interest  on 
foreign  loans  and  freights  paid  foreigners  on  ocean  transporta- 
tion, there  is  evidently  still  a  heavy  credit  balance  in  our 
favor.  Now  the  foreigner  may  go  into  debt  for  our  goods  for 
a  certain  period,  but  that  cannot,  on  the  face  of  things,  be  a 
permanent  method  of  trading.  There  must  either  be  a  settle- 
ment some  day  or  the  other  or  the  trading  will  be  stopped  by 
the  debtor  going  bankrupt.  In  this  instance,  it  is  Europe  that 
is  goine:  bankrupt,  and  when  she  confesses  she  cannot  pay 
America,  then  America  herself,  with  her  heaviest  customer  a 
bankrupt,  will  not  be  very  far  from  bankruptcy  herself. 

We  will  not  take  goods  from  Europe  to  settle  our  trade 
balance  and  she  cannot  give  us  gold.  How  then  can  foreign 
trade  be  any  solution  of  our  problem  of  over-production  when 
we  cannot  trade  ? 

However,  for  the  moment  suppose  our  manufacturer, 
burdened  with  his  surplus  of  American  goods,  as  a  last  resort, 
to  get  rid  of  them,  exchanges  them  for,  say,  French  goods. 
He  now  has  on  the  docks  in  New  York  2,000  million  dollars 
worth  of  French  goods  instead  of  his  2,000  million  dollars  of 
American  goods.  Will  anyone  tell  me  what  better  off  he  is  ? 
How  is  he  going  to  get  rid  of  those  French  goods  ? 

Americans  either  will  not  or  cannot  buy  them.  The  rich 
will  not  buy  because  they  already  have  all  the  French  goods 
they  want.  The  poor  cannot  buy  because  their  wages  do  not 
allow  them  anything  to  buy  with. 

Foreign  trade  is  but  the  most  ephemeral  solution  for  the 
problem  of  Over-Production. 

American  capitalists  are  to-day  more  in  need  of  foreign 
fields  for  investment  of  their  capital  than  are  European  capi- 
talists.   Within  the  past  few  years  the  international  financial 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  25 

market  has  reversed  itself,  and  America  is  now  the  creditor 
instead  of  the  debtor  nation. 

The  "Trusts"  are  merely  a  dam  built  to  prevent  the  swamp- 
ing of  our  industries  by  the  rising  flood  of  domestic  surplus 
capital,  just  as  the  tariff  is  a  dam  to  prevent  them  being 
swamped  by  foreign  capital.  The  "Trusts,"  however,  do  not 
prevent  the  rising  of  this  flood. 

It  is  impossible  to  dam  up  all  the  mouths  of  the  Mississippi, 
no  matter  how  high  the  dams.  A  flowing  river  must  find  the 
ocean  somehow,  and  if  not  by  one  channel,  then  by  another. 
The  Trusts  will  afford  but  a  temporary  breastwork  for  our  cap- 
tains of  industry.  It  will,  however,  be  a  flank  movement 
rather  than  a  frontal  attack  that  will  finally  dislodge  the  cap- 
tains from  their  fortress. 

The  Trust  is  not  only  a  protection  against  undue  compe- 
tition, but  it  is  a  labor-saving  device  of  the  highest  possible 
efficacy.  The  Trust  pursues  its  end  in  a  perfectly  sane  and 
scientific  manner.  No  longer  do  the  old  planless  methods  of 
competition  prevail.  The  Trust  being  the  only  producer  in 
the  field  produces  exactly  what  the  market  needs.  There  is  no 
more  danger  of  either  an  over-supply  or  a  shortage  of  Stand- 
ard Oil  in  any  city  than  there  is  of  water,  gas  or  postage 
stamps.  The  Trust  no  more  needs  canvassers  and  advertise- 
ments to  sell  its  goods  than  does  the  government  to  sell  its 
postal  stamps.  This  increased  industrial  efficiency  of  the 
Trust,  together  with  its  prevention  of  waste  of  capital  in  un- 
necessary duplication  of  machinery,  hastens  by  so  much  the 
completion  of  the  world's  industrial  outfit. 

It  will  not  be  long  before  capital  will  in  vain  seek  profitable 
investment.  Interest,  which  is  determined  by  the  amount  of 
gain  received  by  the  last  amount  borrowed,  will  fall  to  zero  and 
money  will  remain  unlent  in  the  banker's  hands.  The  in- 
centive for  the  poor  man  to  be  "thrifty"  will  perish.  The 
workers  now  engaged  in  producing  new  machinery  of  pro- 
duction will  join  the  unemployed  army  in  regiments.  The 
Trust  will  be  as  defenseless  against  this  new  phase  in  the  in- 
dustrial strife  as  was  the  armored  knight  of  old  against  hunger 
and  thirst. 

Political  autocracy  is  possible,  but  industrial  autocracy,  no 
mater  how  benevolent,  is  impossible.  At  present  the  Trust  is 
an  invaluable  and  absolutely  necessary  weapon  of  defense  for 


26  Wilshire  Editorials. 

the  capitalist  in  the  industrial  warfare,  but  when  the  enemy  to 
be  fought  is  not  competing  capital,  but  a  complete  cessation  of 
demand  for  products  owing  to  unemployed  labor  having  no 
wages  to  buy  with,  its  value  has  passed. 

On  board  ship  in  mid-ocean  if  I  have  control  of  the  water 
supply  I  can  demand  everything  in  exchange  for  the  indis- 
pensable fluid,  but  when  at  last  I  have  gathered  everything  in- 
to my  possession  then  my  monopoly  becomes  of  no  more  value, 
for  there  is  nothing  left  to  be  given  me.  If  I  am  wise  I  will 
then  peaceably  give  up  control  of  the  water  and  let  it  be  taken 
over  by  the  crew.  I  will  be  in  great  luck  if  they  do  not  get 
the  fever  of  co-operation  and  come  back  after  me  for  the  good 
things  they  have  already  given  up  for  the  first  water  they  were 
forced  to  buy.  It  is  thus  in  the  United  States.  The  monopo- 
lists have  unwittingly  run  both  themselves  and  the  workers 
into  an  industrial  cul  de  sac. 

The  capitalists  may  possibly  see  the  danger  first  and  make 
a  turn  that  will  give  them  a  short  and  precarious  lease  of  life 
in  their  present  position.  An  eight-hour  law,  a  minimum 
wage,  old  age  pensions,  etc.,  all  such  reforms  might  possibly 
extend  the  capitalist  system. 

The  best  thing  of  all,  however,  to  bolster  up  the  capitalist 
system  is  a  rattling  good  war  between  the  great  powers.  If  the 
principal  industrial  plants,  railway  shops  and  bridges,  etc.,  of 
this  country  were  destroyed,  the  up-building  of  them  would 
give  labor  unlimited  employment  and  capital  great  scope  for 
investment  of  savings.  Witness  the  boom  following  our  civil 
war,  also  the  late  Spanish  war,  the  British-Boer  war,  and  now 
from  the  Russo-Japanese  war. 

However,  wars  cannot  last  forever.  The  capitalists  sooner 
or  later  will  be  forced  to  face  the  insoluble  problem  of  finding 
work  for  men  when  there  is  absolutely  no  work  to  be  found.  It 
is  absurd  to  hire  men  to  build  oil  refineries  when  half  of 
those  already  built  are  standing  idle.  The  workman  cannot 
blame  the  capitalist  for  refusing  to  employ  him  at  a  loss.  But 
his  stomach  may  be  a  better  reasoner  than  his  brain  in  this 
emergency.  It  will  demand  food.  He  will  say,  "Here  is 
plenty  of  machinery  to  produce  food,  now  why  is  it  I  can't  get 
any?  You  say,  Mr.  Capitalist,  that  you  can't  hire  me  at  a 
profit.  That  may  be  so,  but  why  can't  I  take  the  machinery 
myself  and  run  it  and  take  the  product  and  feed  myself  ?  You 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  27 

say  you  can't  run  it  except  at  a  loss  at  present.  If  so,  then 
you  will  lose  nothing  by  letting  me  run  it.  Anyway,  I  don't 
care  what  you  wish,  I  know  I  am  starving.  You  admit  you 
can't  give  me  food.  Now  I  know  and  you  know  that  my  labor 
will  produce  enough  to  feed  me  if  only  I  have  your  machinery. 
I  propose  to  take  it  and  use  it  for  that  purpose.  I  can  do  it, 
for  I  am  bigger  than  you  are ! 

"You  say  I  produce  too  much.  If  that  is  true,  then  so  much 
the  less  fear  of  my  starving  when  I  produce  for  myself ." 

The  capitalist  may  reply:  "Why,  John,  you  can't  run  a 
flour  mill  all  alone  by  yourself,  that  takes  a  thousand  men. 
You  cannot  transport  that  flour  on  a  railway  by  yourself,  that 
takes  another  thousand  men  to  run  it.  You  need  associated 
labor.  You  will  be  forced  to  run  the  country  just  as  it  is  run 
to-day."  "Oh,  no,"  will  say  John,  "I  will  run  the  flour  mill 
and  railways  co-operatively  by  a  public  corporation,  and  I 
have  that  corporation  already  formed.  It  is  the  United  States 
Government.  We  will  all  be  shareholders  and  we  will  pay 
the  workmen  upon  the  basis  of  what  they  produce  and  not  by 
a  competitive  wage  determined  by  how  little  they  can  live 
upon.  We  won't  have  any  over-production  to  scare  us  then. 
When  we  nationalize  all  industry  that  bogey  man  of  over- 
production will  die  a  natural  death." 

Free  trade  is  sometimes  suggested  as  a  remedy  for  monopoly 
by  those  who  do  not  recognize  that  trusts  are  a  natural  evolu- 
tion of  industry.  When  a  trust  in  a  protected  industry  is 
formed  to  prevent  destruction  of  that  industry  by  domestic 
competition  and  then,  having  complete  control  of  the  domestic 
market,  it  raises  prices  abnormally,  it  is  but  natural  that  there 
will  be  a  suggestion  to  allow  domestic  consumers  the  benefits 
of  foreign  competition  by  reducing  the  tariff.  If  this  is  done 
no  good  would  follow,  for  it  would  mean : — First,  the  foreigner 
will  destroy  the  Trust  by  his  ability  to  sell  at  a  lower  cost; 
second,  or  the  Trust  will  destroy  foreign  competition  by  lower- 
ing its  price. 

Even  the  most  rabid  of  the  Trust  destroyers  would  hardly  be 
willing  to  destroy  the  whole  industry  to  carry  out  his  ends. 

Most  of  the  trusts  in  this  country  are  abundantly  able  to  take 
care  of  themselves,  not  only  in  the  domestic  market,  but  as  the 
export  returns  show,  are  able  to  compete  successfully  with  the 
foreigner  in  his  own  country,  so  that  the  tariff  to-day  is  of 


28  Wilshire  Editorials. 

no  use  to  the  trust  except  as  a  means  of  allowing  it  to  charge 
higher  prices  to  Americans  than  to  the  foreigner.  Free  trade 
would  certainly  abolish  this  unjust  absurdity,  but  it  would  as 
certainly  not  accomplish  the  end  set  out  for,  viz.,  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Trust.  In  fact,  the  very  fact  that  foreign  compe- 
tition had  to  be  met  would  be  an  additional  reason  for  the 
Trust's  existence,  for  the  concentration  of  capital  would  make 
it  that  much  the  better  fighting  machine. 

The  protective  tariff  is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  a  supporter  of  the 
present  industrial  system,  inasmuch  as  it  prevents  labor  and 
capital  operating  at  the  point  of  greatest  advantage.  A  pro- 
tective tariff  gives  better  employment  to  labor  exactly  as  in- 
ferior machinery  requires  more  men  to  operate  it  than  superior. 

Some  have  suggested  that  equality  in  freight  rates  obtained 
by  government-ownership  of  railroads  would  destroy  Trusts. 
The  slightest  investigation,  however,  would  show  that  many 
Trusts  do  not  in  the  least  depend  upon  favors  from  either 
railroads  or  government.  The  taking  over  of  the  railroads  by 
the  Government  would,  however,  have  farreaching  and  re- 
volutionary results.  The  immense  labor-saving  that  would  oc- 
cur from  a  centralized  management  would,  of  course,  serve  but 
to  accentuate  the  unemployed  problem.  This  would  be  the 
least  of  its  effects. 

The  capital  invested  in  railroads  is  half  the  whole  industrial 
capital  of  the  United  States.  A  transfer  of  ownership  to  the 
State  would  mean  the  payment  to  the  present  railway  owners 
of  an  enormous  sum  of  money  that  would  naturally  seek  in- 
vestment in  other  industries. 

These  industries  are  already  about  at  the  point  of  crystal- 
lizing into  monopolies  owing  to  the  plethora  of  capital,  and  the 
advent  of  such  an  enormous  flood  of  money  set  free  by  the  ex- 
propriation of  the  railroad  owners  would  not  only  complete 
the  process,  but  would  cause  the  amalgamation  of  all  the 
Trusts  into  one  huge  Trust,  the  coming  Trust  of  Trusts. 
Nationalization  of  the  railways  would  be  letting  free  such  a 
flood  of  capital  that  the  ship  of  state  would  be  immediately 
floated  into  the  calm  sea  of  Socialism. 

During  the  last  twelve  months,  nearly  $50,000,000  has  been 
paid  in  dividends  by  the  Standard  Oil  Trust.  It  may  be  noted 
that  the  investing  public  pay  no  attention  to  the  intrinsic  value 
of  a  stock,  i.  e.,  to  what  the  property  owned  by  a  corporation 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  29 

cost.  Nor  is  the  "face"  value  of  stock  of  any  moment.  A  share 
of  stock  may  be  nominally  worth  $100 — as  is  Standard  Oil 
stock,  but  as  it  pays  such  enormous  dividends  investors  are 
willing  to  pay  $700  for  each  $100  share.  On  the  other  hand 
there  are  some  corporation  stocks  where  each  $100  share 
actually  represents  $100  invested,  yet  owing  to  various  con- 
ditions dividends  do  not  amount  to  2  per  cent,  a  year,  and 
hence  the  market  value  of  the  stock  is  not  $50  per  share.  There 
is  no  remedy  to  be  found  for  Trusts  by  prevention  of  stock 
watering. 

Neither  would  publicity  of  accounts  avail.  Everybody  knows 
that  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  is  making  profits  of  over  fifty 
million  dollars  a  year.  Yet  what  good  does  the  knowledge  do 
the  public  ?  Admitting  that  oil  sells  at  double  what  it  should, 
what  are  you  going  to  do  about  it  ?  Why  has  not  Mr.  Rocke- 
feller as  much  right  to  the  unearned  increment  derived  from 
his  monopoly  of  the  oil  business  as  has  Mr.  Astor  to  the  unear- 
ned increment  from  his  monopoly  of  land  in  New  York  City  ? 

Mr.  Hearst  is  just  now  leading  a  great  crusade  in  favor  of 
the  municipal  ownership  of  public  utilities.  He  declares  that 
it  will  end  the  reign  of  the  grafters  and  the  bosses. 

This  may  be  true  enough  and  nobody  can  deny  that,  speak- 
ing generally,  municipal  ownership  is  an  excellent  thing  and 
a  great  step  in  the  right  direction,  but  the  question  I  put  to 
Mr.  Hearst  is:  "How  will  municipal  ownership  guarantee 
work  to  the  unemployed  man  ?  How  will  it  increase  the  work- 
er's share  of  the  general  product  ?" 

If  I  am  hungry  and  I  take  one  step  or  even  ten  steps  toward 
the  restaurant,  no  one  would  think  of  saying  that  the  steps  so 
taken  would  lessen  my  hunger. 

Municipal  ownership  is  only  a  step, — a  means  to  an  end, — 
the  end  is  the  establishment  of  the  complete  co-operative 
system. 

Look  at  Glasgow,  the  city  which  Mr.  Hearst  points  out  to  us 
as  having  so  much  municipal  ownership  and  no  grafters,  yet 
Glasgow  has  even  more  poverty  than  has  New  York. 

However,  while  I  readily  admit  that  Glasgow  would  prob- 
ably have  still  more  poverty  than  it  has  now,  and  that  i€ 
would  undoubtedly  have  a  higher  death  rate  than  it  has,  if  it 
did  not  have  public  ownership,  for  private  ownership  usually 
results  in  an  impure  water  supply  and  badly  ventilated,  crowd- 


30  Wilshire  Editorials. 

ed  and  unhealthy  street  cars,  yet  I  say  that  this  admission 
merely  grants  that  public  ownership  is  a  good  reform.  It  is 
quite  inadequate  to  abolish  poverty. 

Let  us  by  all  means,  I  say,  have  municipal  ownership,  just 
as  I  say  let  us  have  any  other  good  reform,  but  do  not  let  us 
forget  that  the  main  evil  to  be  abolished  is  the  competitive 
system,  and  that  until  we  abolish  that  system  we  cannot 
abolish  poverty,  no  matter  how  much  municipal  ownership 
we  may  inaugurate. 

In  order  to  establish  the  co-operative  system  we  must  have 
not  only  municipal  ownership  of  municipal  utilities,  but  we 
must  also  have  national  ownership  of  national  utilities. 

Let  us  have  public  ownership  of  all  the  means  of  production 
as  a  basis  for  our  co-operative  commonwealth,  but  let  us  always 
keep  in  view  that  the  end  is  the  abolition  of  poverty  and  not 
merely  the  getting  rid  of  grafters  and  political  bosses. 

Let  Mr.  Hearst  declare  that  he  is  for  public  ownership  be- 
cause it  is  a  means  to  the  establishment  of  the  entire  co-opera- 
tive system,  because  he  knows  that  nothing  but  that  system  can 
ever  abolish  poverty,  and  then  his  position  will  be  much  more 
logical  than  it  is  at  present. 

No  small  and  cramped  ideal  can  nerve  humanity  for  any 
great  upward  step. 

The  socialist  sees  in  the  co-operative  commonwealth  not 
only  the  abolition  of  poverty,  but  he  sees  a  future  earth 
peopled  by  men  who  have  become  a  race  of  gods,  free,  healthy, 
beautiful,  happy.  A  society  where  men  love  each  other,  love 
the  world,  love  life,  for  life  then  will  be  at  last  really  worth 
the  living. 

Life  will  be  worth  living  because  all  that  to-day  makes  it  a 
hideous  mockery  will  have  disappeared. 

There  will  be  no  fear  of  starvation  staring  one  in  the  face 
because  he  cannot  get  work.  Everyone  will  then  be  his  own 
employer. 

There  will  be  no  one  living  in  dark,  noisome,  unhealthy 
tenements,  all  will  have  beautiful,  light,  sanitary  apartments. 

There  will  be  no  herding  of  people  in  cities  as  to-day,  for 
there  will  be  no  landlord  at  hand  to  demand  rent  for  each 
square  foot  of  land,  and  there  will  be  no  private  owner  of 
street  cars  and  railways  at  hand  to  make  profit  on  each  mile 
one  may  travel  from  workshop  to  house. 


The  Significance  of  the  Trust.  31 

Each  worker  will,  if  he  wish,  live  in  his  own  cottage  in  the 
green  fields,  miles  from  his  work,  for  transportation  will  be 
so  rapid,  so  pleasant  and  so  cheap  that  he  will  have  no  reason 
to  crowd  into  the  tenements  of  a  city. 

Besides  his  pay — for  under  Socialism  everyone  will  easily 
earn  more  than  what  $5,000  a  year  now  affords — will  be  so 
much  greater  and  his  hours  of  labor  so  much  less  that  he  can 
easily  afford  his  own  country  home  and  have  plenty  of  time  to 
enjoy  it  as  well  as  to  spend  in  getting  to  and  fro  from  his 
daily  task. 

He  will  not  feel  that  he  must  "save"  his  earnings  to  provide 
for  accidents  and  old  age.  There  will  be  no  more  reason  for 
"saving"  under  socialism  than  there  is  for  a  man  who  lives  on 
the  shore  of  Lake  Superior  digging  a  well. 

There  will  be  plenty  for  all  and  there  will  always  be  plenty 
more  to  come  when  men  own  the  earth  and  are  not  under 
tribute  to  landlords  and  capitalists.  The  earth  produces 
wealth  in  plenty  for  all,  the  problem  to  be  solved  is  not  pro- 
duction, but  distribution. 

Municipal  and  national  ownership  of  all  the  means  of  pro- 
duction, democratically  managed  by  the  workers  themselves, 
will  solve  the  problem  of  distribution  by  substituting  co-opera- 
tion for  competition. 

To  resume :  We  are  confronted  by  a  fact  and  not  a  theory. 
The  Trust  is  here  to  stay  as  long  as  our  competitive  system 
of  industry  endures.  Democracy  has  been  ousted  from  in- 
dustry by  autocracy,  and  as  our  political  institutions  are  but  a 
reflection  of  our  industrial  institutions,  we  should  not  pretend 
that  anything  but  a  sham  democratic  political  state  remains. 

The  trade-unionists  pure  and  simple,  the  anti-imperialists, 
the  would-be  destroyers  of  Trusts,  are  all  right  enough  senti- 
mentally, but  are  too  limited  in  their  vision.  This  nation  has 
the  mightiest  task  cut  out  before  it  that  the  world  has  ever  set 
to  perform.  The  ship  of  state  already  is  in  the  cataract  of  a 
great  social  Niagara.  It  is  not  too  late  to  save  her  if  we  only 
have  the  patience  and  brains  to  cut  our  political  Welland 
canal,  and  let  her  float  gently  into  the  Lake  Ontario  of  So- 
cialism. Delay  is  dangerous.  That  we  shall  finally  get  into 
our  metaphorical  lake — Socialism — is  absolutely  certain.  The 
only  question  is,  shall  we  go  over  Niagara  or  through  the 
canal? 


32  Wilshire  Editorials. 

Now  is  the  time,  if  ever,  when  this  country  needs  earnest 
men  who  know  the  truth,  and  are  not  afraid  to  cry  it  from  the 
house-tops.  Once  let  us  get  into  the  rapids  and  nothing  can 
save  us  from  the  terrors  of  a  violent  revolution.  Democracy 
must  be  established  in  industry  and  re-established  in  politics. 
There  is  really  no  first  step  to  nationalization  of  industry ;  that 
time  has  passed.  A  half-way  policy  is  impossible  industrially, 
unrighteous  ethically,  and  unsound  politically.  The  main 
plank,  and  in  fact  the  only  necessary  plank  in  our  political 
platform  should  be:  "Let  the  Nation  Own  the  Trusts  and 
Let  the  Workers  Have  All  They  Produce" 


Why  A  Workingman  Should  Be  A  Socialist.       33 


WHY    A    WORKINGMAN    SHOULD    BE   A 
SOCIALIST. 

A  SOCIALIST  is  one  who  desires  that  the  wealth  of  the 
nation  be  owned  collectively  by  all  the  people  rather 
than  individually  by  a  small  fraction  of  them — called 
capitalists. 

By  "wealth  of  the  nation''  is  meant  the  land,  the  railroads, 
the  telegraphs,  the  flour  mills,  the  oil  refineries;  in  short, 
all  those  agencies  by  means  of  which  food,  clothing  and  other 
commodities  are  produced. 

By  Socialism  we  mean  governmental  ownership  and  man- 
agement of  all  wealth-producing  industries.  For  instance, 
just  as  some  of  the  industries,  such  as  the  common  schools, 
the  post  office,  etc.,  are  now  owned  and  managed  by  the  people ; 
under  Socialism,  not  only  these  but  also  all  other  industries 
would  be  owned  and  managed.  In  short,  Socialists  propose 
instead  of  Morgan  and  Eockefeller  owning  the  United  States 
and  running  it  for  their  own  selfish  benefit,  that  we — the 
people — shall  assume  possession  of  it  ourselves  and  run  it  for 
our  own  benefit. 

This  is  such  a  very  simple  proposition  that  anyone  should 
be  able  to  understand  it.  That  every  patriotic  American,  and 
especially  every  workingman,  is  not  in  favor  of  Socialism  can 
only  be  explained  by  his  ignorance  of  what  Socialism  really  is. 

It  is  certainly  a  praiseworthy  sentiment  for  the  citizens 
and  inhabitants  of  a  nation  to  desire  to  own  their  own  coun- 
try. It  is  as  natural  a  thing  for  them  to  so  wish  as  it  is  for  a 
man  to  own  his  own  house,  rather  than  to  rent  it  of  a  land- 
lord. 

The  motive  that  inspires  a  father  to  provide  a  home  for  his 
family  is  of  exactly  the  same  nature  as  that  which  animates 
the  Socialist,  in  desiring  that  all  men  shall  have  homes  of 
their  own. 

We  said  that  every  workingman  who  understood  what  So- 
cialism meant  would  certainly  be  a  Socialist — for  assuredly 


34  Wilshire  Editorials. 

your  condition  in  life  is  not  such  that  you  should  fear  a 
change.  You  are  poor;  you  are  dissatisfied,  or  at  least  you 
ought  to  be  dissatisfied  with  your  lot  in  life ;  you  have  a  sense 
of  being  unjustly  dealt  with  by  society;  you  know  that  your 
labor  alone  produces  all  the  good  things  of  life,  and  you  know 
that  some  one  else  enjoys  them;  you  know  all  these  things, 
and  you  know,  or  you  should  know,  that  as  simple  a  thing  as 
casting  your  ballot  intelligently  can  produce  a  change,  so  that 
you  yourself  will  receive  and  enjoy  all  the  fruits  of  your  labor, 
with  no  necessity  of  giving  the  lion's  share,  or  any  other 
share,  to  Rockefeller,  Vanderbilt  &  Co. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  some  excuse  for  your  not  realizing 
that  the  shackles  which  tie  you  to  poverty  are  but  figments  of 
your  imagination.  You  are  be-fooled  and  humbugged  at 
every  source  to  which  you  might  look  for  information.  The 
newspapers  ostensibly  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  working- 
men  in  reality  are  but  the  tools  of  the  capitalists — their 
owners. 

The  politicians,  notoriously  such  liars  and  knaves,  you 
scarcely  listen  to,  except  to  deride.  Reflect  on  your  condition, 
and  consider  that  you,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  are  an 
inhabitant  of  a  country  possessing  natural  resources  capable 
of  easily  supporting  over  ten  times  its  present  population. 
You  are  informed  by  unchallenged,  by  uncontrovertible  sta- 
tistics that,  by  the  development  of  the  steam  engine  and  labor- 
saving  machinery,  the  labor  of  one  man  can  to-day  produce 
commodities — food,  clothing,  lodging,  etc. — sufficient  to  more 
than  comfortably  provide  for  twenty,  and  yet  the  fact  stares 
you  in  the  face  that  the  return  you  get  for  your  labor  scarcely 
keeps  you  alive.  Knowing  these  things,  can  you  remain  con- 
tented to  live  under  a  social  system  that  gives  you  an  existence 
more  miserable  than  that  of  a  slave  ?  Do  you  wonder  to  whom 
goes  the  surplus  produced,  and  why? 

Let  us  put  the  matter  clearly  before  you.  The  capitalist 
class  owns  the  essentials  of  production — that  is,  the  railways, 
the  flour  mills,  the  oil  and  sugar  refineries,  and  the  land. 

Now,  to  get  clothing,  food  and  lodging,  both  land  and  ma- 
chinery must  be  employed,  and  if  one  class  own  these  essentials 
of  production,  it  is  evident  that  it  can  demand  of  you,  the 
class  which  does  not  own  them,  as  much  rent  as  it  pleases  for 
the  use  of  them. 


Why  A  Workingman  Should  Be  A  Socialist.       35 

And  what  does  it  please  to  demand? 

Everything  that  you  produce,  except  the  very  small  part 
called  "wages"  which  it  allows  you  to  keep,  just  sufficient  to 
sustain  your  existence.  You  are  in  nearly  the  same  position 
as  horses,  in  that  you  can  never  expect  to  get  any  more  than 
just  enough  to  keep  you  in  a  condition  to  be  able  to  work. 
The  chief  difference  is  that  the  employer  of  the  horse  feeds 
him  even  when  he  cannot  for  the  time  being  use  his  labor, 
while  the  employer  of  you  workingmen  feeds  you  only  when 
you  are  useful  to  him,  and  when  you  are  not — as  in  dull 
seasons — he  lets  you  out  to  starve,  as  far  as  he  is  concerned. 
He  loses  money  if  his  horse  starves,  but  he  loses  nothing  if 
you  die. 

You  ask,  why  don't  capitalists  pay  higher  wages?  Why 
don't  they  pay  wages  sufficient  to  allow  you  to  properly  feed 
and  clothe  yourselves,  your  wives  and  your  children?  You 
ask,  why  don't  workingmen  successfully  demand  wages  suffi- 
cient to  enable  them  to  educate  their  children  in  the  public 
schools?  Why  mock  us,  you  cry,  with  free  schools,  when  we 
must  send  our  children  to  the  mine  and  the  factory  to  earn 
food  for  our  family? 

The  answer  is  short  and  simple. 

As  long  as  there  are  millions  of  unemployed  men  in  the 
United  States  only  too  glad  to  get  a  chance  to  work  for  wages 
that  will  afford  the  bare  necessities  of  life,  wages  will  never 
rise.  Consider  a  familiar  every-day  occurrence  in  business 
life.  A  and  B  each  own  a  coal  mine.  Owing  to  competition 
each  is  forced  to  sell  his  coal  at  the  lowest  price  possible.  The 
item  of  labor  is  the  chief  one  in  the  expense  of  mining  coal — 
so,  supposing  that  A  pays  his  men  less  than  B,  then  he  is  in 
the  position  of  being  able  to  undersell  B,  and,  unless  B  can 
manage  to  get  his  labor  as  cheap  as  A,  he  must  retire  from 
business,  for  he  can  sell  no  coal.  The  capitalists  could  not 
under  our  competitive  system  pay  higher  wages,  even  though 
they  might  wish  to  do  so. 

Then,  on  |the  other  hand,  consider  the  laborer — the  miner. 
Suppose  he  is  getting  one  dollar  per  day  and  some  poor  fel- 
lows come  along,  out  of  employment — some  emigrants,  for 
instance — who,  rather  than  starve,  offer  to  work  for  seventy- 
five  cents  per  day;  it  is  certain  that,  as  the  owners  of  the 
mines  are  forced  to  always  buy  the  cheapest  labor  that  is 


36  Wilshire  Editorials. 

offered,  our  dollar-a-day  laborer  must  accept  a  reduction  in 
his  wages  to  seventy-five  cents  or  be  replaced  by  the  emigrant. 
Hence  we  see  how  it  is  that  the  pressure  of  the  unemployed 
upon  the  labor  market  always  keeps  the  price  of  labor  at  the 
lowest  notch.  And  the  more  labor-saving  machinery  that  is 
introduced,  the  more  men  are  thrown  out  of  employment,  and 
the  greater  the  struggle  to  get  hired  at  any  price.  Consider- 
ing how  it  is  ever  thus  under  our  present  competitive  wage 
system  that  wages  must  remain  low,  it  is  easily  seen  how  ab- 
surd it  is  for  Democrats  and  Kepublicans  to  claim  that  free 
trade  or  free  silver,  a  high  tariff  or  a  low  tariff  can  ever  make 
wages  high. 

Workingmen  are  at  last  coming  to  recognize  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  reliance  to  be  placed  on  either  of  the  old  parties 
and  that  they  must  organize  a  party  of  their  own  which  will 
do  away  with  the  competitive  wage  system  entirely,  and  sub- 
stitute the  co-operative  system. 

Workingmen — Americans:  The  issue  is  plain.  Yours  is 
the  choice — whether  to  remain  slaves  in  your  own  country, 
fettered  by  your  own  hands — to  see  your  wives  and  your  chil- 
dren live  in  poverty  and  squalor,  aye,  and  often  starve  before 
your  very  eyes — or  whether  you  will  be  free  men,  not  in  name 
only,  but  in  reality — whether  you  will  own  your  own  country 
and  enjoy  the  full  fruits  of  your  honest  labor. 

You  may  say :  "Ah !  Well  enough !  Those  are  fine  words — 
but  it  is  impossible  for  anything  to  be  done !  Workingmen 
have  always  been  poor  and  always  will  be  poor.  You  Social- 
ists merely  make  us  feel  our  poverty  more  keenly — make  us 
discontented  without  showing  us  any  practical  plan  to  abolish 
the  causes  of  our  discontent.  Of  course,  we  want  to  be  in 
better  circumstances — of  course,  we  wish  to  provide  better  for 
our  families.  Certainly  we  would  rather  send  our  children 
to  school  than  to  the  factory.  We  know  that  we  are  virtually 
slaves — and,  of  course,  we  would  like  to  end  our  slavery. 
*What  fool  would  not  have  his  fellow  men  own  their  own  coun- 
try, rather  than  let  the  capitalists  own  it  ?  But  even  suppos- 
ing the  wealth  of  the  nation  were  divided  up,  as  we  suppose 
you  Socialists  propose,  that  would  simply  mean  a  matter  of 
time  before  Eockefeller  &  Co.  would  have  it  all  back  again." 

Workingmen,  you  are  mistaken;  Socialists  do  propose  a 
most  practical  solution  of  the  problem  of  how  to  'permanent- 


Why  A  Workingman  Should  Be  A  Socialist.       37 

ly  abolish  poverty.  If  you  will  consider  our  plan  you  cannot 
help  but  agree  that  its  accomplishment  would  prevent  any 
fear  of  Eockef eller  &  Co.  ever  getting  our  country  away  from 
us  after  it  is  once  restored. 

Socialism  means  anything  but  the  division  of  wealth.  So- 
cialism means  the  absolute  concentration  of  the  ownership  of 
the  wealth  of  the  country  into  the  collective  control  and  own- 
ership of  the  people  themselves,  through  the  government. 
The  only  division  that  Socialists  propose  is  the  fair  division 
of  commodities  produced,  but  they  never  propose  the  division 
of  the  ownership  of  the  machinery  that  produces  commodities. 
For  instance,  the  people  (the  government)  will  collectively 
own  the  land,  the  grain  elevators,  and  you  and  I  individually 
will  own  the  product :  the  bread. 

As  to  the  practicability  of  collective  or  government  owner- 
ship of  the  means  of  production,  it  is  best  answered  by  the 
consideration  of  the  excellent  management  of  such  machinery 
as  is  now  managed  by  the  government,  such  as  the  post  office, 
the  public  schools,  the  Panama  Railway,  etc. 

When,  by  the  mismanagement  of  private  owners,  some  rail- 
way is  thrown  into  the  bankruptcy  court,  and  the  government 
is  forced  to  take  control  and  management  through  a  receiver, 
it  is  notorious  that  such  government  management  has  been 
uniformly  successful.  If  the  people  can  successfully  operate 
bankrupt  railroads,  why  should  they  not  be  able  to  operate 
solvent  and  successful  railroads  ? 

Government  ownership  of  railways  and  telegraphs  is  the 
usual  method  in  Europe  and  Australia.  However,  there  is 
really  no  serious  attempt  to  deny  the  feasibility  of  government 
ownership,  and  what  we  will  now  demonstrate  is,  not  the  prac- 
ticability but  the  absolute  necessity  of  government  ownership 
of  all  the  means  of  production — Socialism — if  we  wish  to 
preserve  ourselves  from  starvation.  It  seems  paradoxical,  but 
nevertheless  it  is  true,  that  the  more  productive  machinery 
the  more  difficult  it  is  for  the  laborer  to  get  the  wealth  that 
is  so  easily  produced.  Let  us  consider  the  present  state  of 
industry  in  the  United  States. 

Within  the  last  few  years  the  owners  of  the  various  great 
industries  of  this  country,  through  the  tremendous  develop- 
ment of  their  plants  and  the  consequent  fierce  competition  to 
sell  goods,  have  been  compelled  to  consolidate  their  interests 


38  Wilshire  Editorials. 

into  "trusts,"  as  a  matter  of  sheer  necessity,  to  preserve  them- 
selves from  bankruptcy  owing  to  overproduction  and  the  re- 
sultant low  prices. 

Having  in  mind  the  millions  of  poorly  clothed  and  fed 
men,  women  and  children,  it  may  seem  to  many  that  the  ex- 
cuse of  "overproduction"  the  "trusts"  give  for  their  existence 
is  the  boldest  of  lies.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
owners  of  the  sugar,  beef  and  other  trusts  are  not  in  business 
for  philanthropic  motives — "not  in  business  for  their  health," 
but  to  make  money.  The  mere  fact  of  people  starving  for  the 
want  of  what  their  machinery  produces  does  not  constitute 
any  sound  business  reason  for  capitalists  to  feed  them.  Unless 
people  have  money  they  have  no  legal  right  to  food.  So  we 
see  that  as  far  as  the  capitalist  is  concerned  there  is  over- 
production when  he  finds  no  "buyers,"  notwithstanding  there 
may  be  plenty  of  "wanters"  who  want  but  have  no  money  to 
buy. 

In  a  country  as  productive  as  the  United  States  and  where 
wage-workers — the  great  consuming  class — are  paid  such  a 
small  part  of  what  is  produced,  there  must  always  be  danger 
of  a  great  surplus  remaining  in  the  hands  of  the  capitalists 
unless  they  avoid  such  a  result  by  increasing  consumption  or 
by  restricting  production — and  restricting  production  means 
shutting  down  factories — turning  out  of  employment  willing 
workers  to  starve  in  the  midst  of  plenty. 

This  critical  period,  viz.,  a  great  unemployed  question,  has 
only  been  prevented  from  appearing  long  ago  because  the  con- 
stant progress  of  invention  has  given  the  capitalists  an  op- 
portunity to  increase  consumption  and  at  the  same  time  to 
make  a  good  profit  in  employing  workingmen  both  in  the 
building  of  new  machinery  and  in  the  reconstruction  of  old 
machinery.  For  instance,  within  the  last  few  years  the  street 
car  lines  have  been  transformed  from  horse-power  systems  to 
electric  power.  This  work  has  given  employment  to  thou- 
sands of  men.  As  long  as  there  was  a  demand  for  new  ma- 
chinery there  was  always  life  for  the  existing  social  system, 
for  labor  could  be  kept  satisfied  by  being  employed. 

However,  the  appearance  of  the  "trust"  means  that  the 
making  of  more  new  machinery  is  unnecessary.  The  new 
machines  are  not  only  finished,  but  the  capitalists  say  that 
there  are  in  fact  now  already  too  many  built.    The  "trust"  is 


Why  A  Workingman  Should  Be  A  Socialist.       39 

a  necessity  to  them,  they  say,  not  only  to  prevent  the  produc- 
tion of  unnecessary  machinery,  but  to  prevent  the  operation 
of  the  existing  surplus  machinery  in  producing  surplus  goods 
which  can  only  be  sold  at  a  loss.  Socialists  are  quite  in  accord 
with  the  capitalists  who  declare  that  anti-trust  laws  are  ab- 
surd, as  trusts  are  a  necessary  development  of  our  competitive 
system,  yet  at  the  same  time  we  realize  that  the  trusts  are 
the  forerunners  of  a  huge  unemployed  problem. 

The  "trust"  solves  the  problem  of  "overproduction"  for  the 
capitalist,  but  it  does  so  only  by  bringing  up  a  future  problem 
of  unemployment  for  the  workingman. 

"Overproduction"  is  caused  by  the  competitive  system  pre- 
venting the  workingmen  demanding  enough  wages  to  buy  the 
goods  they  themselves  have  produced.  In  order  to  prevent 
overproduction  the  competitive  system  of  distribution  must  be 
abolished  and  a  new  system  substituted  which  will  allow  the 
workers  to  consume  what  they  produce. 

This  new  system  is  the  co-operative  system,  the  inaugura- 
tion of  which  would  mean  that  the  workers  would  receive 
wealth  accordingly  as  they  produced  it,  instead  of  upon  the 
present  basis  of  allowing  them  the  very  least  that  will  afford 
the  bare  necessities  of  life. 

However,  it  is  evident  that  if  the  workers  take  all  they  pro- 
duce that  there  will  be  nothing  left  for  the  capitalists. 

There  will  be  no  incentive  to  own  property  privately,  for 
there  will  be  no  profit,  no  rent,  no  interest. 

The  abolition  of  the  profit  system  practically  means  the  end 
of  the  system  of  the  private  ownership  of  capital.  It  would 
mean  the  inauguration  of  the  system  of  public  or  government 
ownership  of  trusts  and  monopolies — in  fact,  of  all  capital. 

Socialism  means,  in  other  words,  the  co-operative  or  govern- 
ment ownership  and  management  of  all  capital  and  the  co- 
operative distribution  of  the  product  to  the  workers. 

Socialism  means  industrial  democracy.  We  now  live  under 
an  industrial  autocracy,  with  King  Rockefeller  as  our  indus- 
trial ruler,  just  as  before  1776  we  lived  under  a  political  au- 
tocracy with  King  George  of  England  as  our  political  ruler. 

The  reasons  which  led  America  to  conquer  for  herself  polit- 
ical democracy  are  not  nearly  as  strong  as  those  which  are 
now  about  to  force  her  to  achieve  industrial  democracy. 

Public  ownership  of  monopolies,  or  Socialism,  is  an  in- 


40  Wilshire  Editorials. 

evitability  because  it  affords  the  only  possible  solution  for  the 
distribution  of  commodities  when  the  machinery  of  produc- 
tion finally  develops  beyond  the  control  of  the  capitalists. 
This  stage  in  the  evolution  of  industry  is  now  upon  us.  The 
"trust"  is  the  significant  sign  of  the  impending  collapse  of 
capitalism. 

The  "trust"  is  not  only  a  protection  against  competition, 
but  it  is  also  a  labor-saving  machine,  effecting  tremendous 
economies  in  production.  Just  as  the  manual  laborers  of  fifty 
years  ago  tried  to  destroy  the  first  machines  which  displaced 
them,  so  we  see  a  like  ineffectual  clamor  from  the  smaller 
capitalists  of  to-day  against  their  inevitable  displacement  by 
the  trust  magnates. 

But  monopoly  is  the  future  determining  factor  in  produc- 
tion, and  competition  is  forever  dethroned.  We  already  see 
each  of  our  great  industries  controlled  by  one  corporation 
headed  by  one  man — a  captain  of  industry — and  this  state  of 
affairs  is  what  more  than  anything  else  demonstrates  the 
practicability  of  Socialism.  Certainly  if  a  Gould  can  success- 
fully manage  the  telegraphs  of  the  country,  there  can  be  no 
difficulty  in  the  government  doing  the  same  thing. 

We  already  manage  the  post  office — why  not  the  telegraphs  ? 

If  Mr.  Eockefeller  manage  the  oil  business,  Mr.  Vanderbilt 
the  railways,  Mr.  Armour  the  beef  business,  Mr.  Pillsbury  the 
flour  business,  Mr.  Schwab  the  iron  business,  Mr.  Havemeyer 
the  sugar  business,  Mr.  Frick  the  coal  business,  and  Mr.  Astor 
our  land ;  we  say,  if  these  capitalists  can  manage  these  proper- 
ties for  their  own  selfish  ends,  that  we,  the  people,  can  just 
as  well  manage  them  for  our  own  use  and  benefit. 

Capitalism  in  its  death  throes  tries  every  means  to  sustain 
prices  at  a  profitable  basis  against  the  constantly  growing 
menace  of  "overproduction."  To  this  end  it  adopts  the 
"trust"  at  home,  as  a  means  of  restricting  domestic  produc- 
tion, and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  institutes  a  policy  of  "im- 
perialism" abroad  as  a  means  of  increasing  foreign  consump- 
tion. Hence  we  see  that  both  "trusts"  and  "imperialism" 
work  hand  in  glove  and  are  simply  results  of  the  vain  struggle 
of  the  capitalists  to  maintain  falling  prices. 

The  Democrats  are  pursuing  a  chimera  when  they  strive  to 
prevent  these  natural  results  of  our  industrial  system,  and  the 
Republicans  adopt  an  even  more  dangerous  policy  when  they 


Why  A  Workingman  Should  Be  A  Socialist.       41 

refuse  to  admit  that  such  signs  are  indicative  of  an  approach- 
ing social  revolution. 

All  the  foregoing  is  pretty  plain  talk,  and  should  not  be 
easily  misunderstood.  Some,  however,  while  following  the 
argument  that  (1)  wages  cannot,  under  the  competitive  wage 
system,  rise  above  the  subsistence  point,  no  matter  how  pro- 
ductive labor  may  become,  and  (2)  that  this  curtailment  of 
consumption  must  result  in  overproduction,  and  (3)  that 
next  is  the  trust,  and  (4)  the  trust  must  be  followed  by  (5) 
the  great  unemployed  problem,  may  not  see  the  solution  in  (6) 
the  final,  public  ownership  of  the  trusts  and  other  machinery 
of  production — Socialism. 

Of  course,  it  must  strike  everyone  as  absurd  that  people 
cannot  get  enough  to  eat  because  they  produce  too  much,  and 
yet  everyone  realizes  that  a  laborer  cannot  eat  if  he  doesn't 
get  any  wages  to  buy  food.  It  is  also  plain  that  a  laborer 
cannot  get  a  job  of  the  baker  to  make  bread  if  the  baker 
already  has  too  much  bread  in  his  oven — so  much  that  he 
can't  sell  the  bread  already  baked. 

It  is  also  pretty  evident  that  if  the  laborer  were  his  own 
baker  he  would  not  starve  for  bread  when  it  is  his  own  oven 
that  is  full  of  bread. 

Now  this  is  simply  the  Socialist  argument.  We  say  that 
this  country  of  ours,  America,  is  like  a  grand  bake-oven  rilled 
with  bread,  and  cake,  too,  for  that  matter.  That  the  head 
baker  of  the  national  oven,  Mr.  Rockefeller,  can't  hire  us  to 
bake  bread  because  he  can't  sell  us  the  bread  we  have  made, 
but  that  this  is  no  reason  why  we  should  starve  when  all  we 
have  to  do  is  to  take  over  the  bakery  ourselves  and  take  the 
bread  out  and  feed  ourselves  with  our  own  baking. 

There  really  would  be  no  opposition  from  Rockefeller  to 
our  taking  the  business  off  his  hands  so  long  as  we  took  it  for 
ourselves  and  let  him  have  his  share  along  with  us.  Rocke- 
feller is  not  necessarily  such  a  bad  fellow,  but  he  naturally 
would  object  if  he  thought  we  were  going  to  take  the  national 
bakery — otherwise  our  own  country — away  from  him  in  order 
to  give  it  to  Carnegie  or  Vanderbilt,  the  very  men  from  whom 
he  has  just  wrested  it  away  for  himself.  The  opposition  to 
Socialism  isn't  from  Rockefeller  &  Co.  It  is  from  the  stupid- 
ity and  apathy  of  the  very  people  most  to  be  benefited  by  it, 
from  workingmen  themselves. 


42  Wilshire  Editorials. 

All  we  have  to  do,  in  order  to  own  our  own  country,  is  for 
a  majority  to  vote  for  the  Socialist  Party,  the  only  party  that 
is  pledged  to  carry  out  that  idea.  With  the  success  of  that 
party,  and  the  change  that  it  would  bring  about,  no  one  need 
work  over  three  hours  a  day,  and  everyone  who  wanted  to 
work  could  find  it,  receiving  in  return  the  full  fruits  of  his 
labor.  Everyone  would  have  leisure — children  would  be  edu- 
cated— all  would  be  free,  and  happiness  would  reign  supreme. 

Workingmen,  you  now  know  the  road  to  freedom.  When 
you  pursue  that  path  you  will  be  f ree — before  that,  never. 


Why  Save  Men's  Souls?  43 


WHY  SAVE  MEN'S  SOULS? 

THERE  was  a  time  when  talking  about  saving  the  souls  of 
men  was  ever  wearisome  to  me.  It  seemed  such  a  use- 
less thing  to  talk  of  saving  men's  souls,  when  their 
bodies  gave  no  sign  of  possessing  any  souls  worth  the  saving, 
even  when  it  was  granted  that  they  had  the  souls  to  save. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  had  to  admit  that  there  really  existed 
no  incentive  to  save  men's  bodies,  if  they  had  no  souls  to 
make  it  worth  while.  But,  later,  when  I  came  to  see  that  it 
was  a  mathematical  certainty  that  men's  bodies  were  going 
to  be  saved,  I  began  to  consider  the  soul  of  man. 

The  bodies  are  of  a  certainty  going  to  be  saved.  Man's 
increasing  control  over  natural  forces  will  finally  cause  the 
earth  to  produce  such  a  vast  quantity  of  wealth,  that  it  will 
finally  overflow  any  artificial  dam  that  men  may  erect  in 
the  vain  attempt  to  make  it  artificially  scarce,  in  order  that 
the  possessors  of  it  might  hold  the  non-possessors  in  sub- 
jection. A  dam  across  a  mill  stream  is  of  value  only  when 
there  is  neither  too  little  nor  too  much  water.  It  is  just  as 
necessary  that  there  be  a  waste-way,  as  that  there  be  a  fall. 
When  the  stream  is  so  full  that  the  whole  surrounding 
country  is  at  flood  the  power  of  the  dam  is  gone. 

Air  is  just  as  useful  to  man  as  food,  but  it  has  no  value 
since  it  may  be  had  for  the  breathing.  When  food  becomes 
as  plentiful  and  as  easy  to  obtain  as  air  then  food  will  be 
as  valueless  as  air;  but  that  does  not  mean  that  it  will  be- 
come useless.     Man  will  still  eat  and  breathe. 

However,  on  the  day  when  food  loses  its  value  because 
all  may  have  it  in  plenty,  on  that  day  men's  bodies  will  be 
saved;  and  the  earth  will  become  peopled  by  a  healthy, 
strong  and  beautiful  race  of  men.  It  will  be  as  impossible 
for  men  to  be  unhealthy  and  ugly — the  words  are  synony- 
mous— as  for  a  herd  of  deer  in  the  wild  forest  to  be  ugly 
or  unhealthy.  The  earth  will  sing  with  joy  and  beauty. 
But  granting  that  it  will  thus  sing,  why  should  I  be  inter- 
ested in  hastening  the  day  of  song?    Not  because  of  any 


44  Wilshire,  Editorials. 

hope  that  I  individually  shall  be  either  a  participant  or 
spectator.  I  have  such  hope,  of  course,  for  the  day  when 
food  will  be  as  plentiful  as  air  is  near  at  hand.  The  real 
joy  of  striving  for  a  Heaven  on  Earth  consists  in  the  striving 
itself,  and  not  in  the  hope  of  realization. 

It  is  but  shifting  the  question  to  say  it  is  natural  for  man 
to  strive  for  the  beautiful.  Why  is  it  natural  to  strive  for 
beauty?  Why  do  we  love  life?  Why  do  we  love  music? 
Because  Life,  the  Soul  of  Things,  is  harmony.  There  is 
a  rhythm  vibrating  through  the  universe  which  causes  all 
things  to  vibrate  in  unison  with  it.  It  makes  inanimate 
Nature  take  form  in  harmonious  lines  of  beauty.  Not  even 
a  snowflake  but  joyfully  obeys  this  rhythmic  law  of  beauty. 
In  response  to  it  the  butterfly  paints  her  wings  and  the 
nightingale  tunes  her  lute.  The  composer  arranges  his 
anthem,  the  painter  his  colors,  the  poet  his  words,  and  the 
true  man  his  deeds,  to  come  into  unison  with  the  same 
great  song  of  life.  The  effort  is  with  most  of  us  unconscious 
to-day.  When  we  shall  become  conscious  of  what  we  are 
doing  we  shall  come  into  the  greater  joy  that  a  Mozart  pos- 
sesses over  a  nightingale,  or  a  Raphael  over  a  butterfly.  The 
joy  of  the  consciousness  of  harmony  is  greater  than  the  mere 
feeling  of  the  harmony.  It  is  the  joy  of  the  soul  over  the 
body.  Anyone  may  enjoy  a  symphony,  but  the  greatest  joy 
is  to  those  who  understand,  to  musicians.  There  is  a  joy 
of  the  material  and  a  joy  of  the  spiritual ;  but  the  joy  of  the 
spiritual  must  have  a  material  base.  To  have  spiritual 
harmony  we  must  have  material  harmony.  I  may  enjoy 
the  symphony  more  in  my  soul  than  in  my  ears,  but  I  must 
have  my  ears  to  support  the  soul's  delight.  I  may  hear  the 
symphony  but  once,  but  I  must  have  had  ears  to  have  heard 
it  that  once  if  it  is  to  light  my  soul  through  eternity.  The 
spirit  must  have  the  earth  to  root  itself  in;  otherwise  there 
can  be  no  spirit.  We  cannot  have  souls  without  bodies  and 
we  cannot  have  great  souls  if  we  starve  the  body. 

Life  is  the  successive  annihilation  of  shorter  rhythmic 
waves  by  the  larger  ones,  a  continuous  progression  to  an 
infinitely  great  vibration.  You  have  seen  a  storm  begin 
at  sea — first  are  the  ripples,  then  the  short,  choppy  waves, 
and  finally  come  the  grand,  heaving  swells  which  absorb  all 
the  little  waves  and  ripples  that  preceded  them.    Humanity 


Why  Save  Men's  Souls?  45 

is  now  in  the  stage  of  the  ripples,  but  the  tide  is  flowing, 
and  all  men  are  being  irresistibly  forced  from  their  petty 
vibrations  with  the  little  ripples  to  move  with  the  larger  and 
larger  waves  of  human  thought  and  sympathy  now  so  rapidly 
forming  on  the  ocean  of  life  in  response  to  the  rising  storm 
of  human  thought. 


46  Wilshire  Editorials. 


A  PROPHECY  OF  1891. 

[An  excerpt  from  my  preface  to  the  American  edition  of  the 
Fabian  Essays  published  by  the  Humboldt  Publishing  Co.  of  New 
York,  in  June,  1891.] 

TO  the  American  readers  of  these  essays,  it  may  prove  a 
matter  of  surprise  to  learn  that  English  Socialists  find 
in  the  United  States  the  most  pronounced  economic 
phenomena,  which,  to  their  eyes  at  least,  seem  to  prognosti- 
cate the  near  approach  of  the  coming  social  revolution.  I 
refer  to  the  "Trusts." 

It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  while  they  consider 
the  "Trust"  as  a  symptom  that  the  competitive  system  is  in 
its  last  throes,  they  wait  for  the  appearance  of  similar  in- 
dustrial combinations  in  England  to  stir  Englishmen  to  a 
revolt;  and  that  Americans,  as  if  to  square  the  account  of 
'76,  are  to  learn  revolution  from  their  transatlantic  cousins. 

By  "revolution"  is  to  be  understood,  of  course,  not  violence, 
but  a  complete  change  of  system;  and  by  "revolutionists," 
those  who  advocate  such  a  complete  change.  As  Lassalle 
reminded  us  years  ago,  trifling  reforms  may  be,  and  often 
have  been,  accompanied  by  excessive  bloodshed,  while  revolu- 
tions have  worked  themselves  out  in  the  profoundest  tran- 
quility. 

It  seems  to  be  typical  of  all  social  revolutionists  that  na- 
tional pride  always  asserts  itself,  no  matter  how  much 
patriotism  may  be  decried  as  mere  racial  selfishness  when- 
ever discussion  arises  as  to  which  nation  is  to  be  the  first  to 
throw  off  the  shackles  of  capitalism. 

The  Fabian  essayists  certainly  make  out  a  strong  case  in 
England's  favor. 

The  German  points  with  pride  to  the  million  and  a  half 
votes  polled  by  the  Socialists  at  the  last  elections  for  the 
Eeichstag. 

France,  the  mother  of  revolutions,  sings  the  Marseillaise. 

The  Belgian  asks  but  for  universal  suffrage  to  show  the 
world  what  he  will  do  in  the  way  of  revolution. 


A  Prophecy  op  1891.  47 

I,  as  an  American  Socialist,  put  forth  my  patriotic  plea  in 
favor  of  my  own  country's  prospects  of  being  the  first  to  in- 
augurate the  era  of  industrial  emancipation. 

There  is  one  point  upon  which  I  think  all  Socialists  are 
agreed,  namely,  that  it  is  one  and  the  same  golden  chain  that 
fetters  the  proletariat  of  all  nations,  and  that  the  weakest 
link  in  that  chain  is  the  measure  of  the  strength  of  the  present 
social  system.  Snap  but  one  link  in  any  country,  and  at  the 
same  moment  the  proletariat  of  the  world  are  free. 

The  social  revolution,  when  it  does  come,  must  soon  be 
international  (though  resting  perhaps  for  a  period  upon  na- 
tional Socialism).  I  imagine,  for  instance,  that  on  gaining 
universal  suffrage,  Belgium's  proletariat  should  expropriate 
the  capitalists  and  inaugurate  a  successful  co-operative  com- 
monwealth. Is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  workingmen  of  all 
nations  would  not  make  a  successful  demand  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  like  social  system  in  their  own  respective  coun- 
tries ?  Moreover,  the  general  industrial  condition  of  the  great 
nations  is  approximately  the  same.  All  complain  of  over- 
production. All  are  vainly  trying  to  solve  the  question  of  the 
unemployed;  in  all  the  tendency  to  great  social  change  is 
a  marked  feature.  In  all,  the  great  capitalists,  crushing  out 
their  smaller  rivals  and  concentrating  wealth  into  fewer  and 
fewer  hands,  are  the  true  progenitors  of  the  revolution. 

The  people  of  the  United  States,  the  nation  that  certainly 
furnishes  the  best  educational  facilities  for  demonstrating 
the  advantages  of  the  concentration  and  crystallization  of 
capital,  should  naturally  and  logically  be  the  first  to  strike 
for  economic  freedom.  To-day,  in  the  United  States,  50,000 
people,  out  of  a  population  of  over  sixty-three  millions,  own 
everything  worth  having  in  the  whole  country. 

Four  men,  viz. :  Gould,  Astor,  Vanderbilt  and  Rockefeller, 
practically  control,  and,  what  is  more  important,  are  rapidly 
absorbing  the  wealth  of  this  50,000.  The  day  is  not  so  very 
far  distant,  and  a  sociologist  can  predict  almost  its  exact 
appearance,  just  as  an  astronomer  calculates  the  date  of  an 
eclipse  of  the  sun,  when,  if  no  structural  change  in  society 
takes  place,  these  four  men  will  be  the  sole  owners  of  the  Uni- 
ted States.  I  think  that,  if  such  a  state  of  affairs  should  come 
about,  no  one  would  differ  with  me  when  I  say  that  it  would 
force  a  reconstruction  of  society.    In  other  words,  the  sixty 


48  Wilshire  Editorials. 

odd  millions  of  people  in  the  United  States  may  now  rest 
undisturbed,  and  allow  a  plutocracy  of  50,000  to  own  their 
country;  but  when  it  shall  come  to  having  only  four  own  it, 
patience  will  cease  to  be  a  virtue. 

That  the  tendency  of  the  wealth  of  the  United  States  is 
to  concentrate  into  larger  and  larger  masses,  held  by  a  con- 
stantly diminishing  number  of  capitalists,  is  not  disputed  by 
anyone  at  all  familiar  with  the  statistics  of  the  case.  This 
process  continued  and  followed  to  its  logical  conclusion  must 
lead  inevitably  to  Socialism.  If  Gould  &  Co.  are  not  to 
own  the  railways  and  telegraphs,  the  land  and  machinery, 
there  can  be  but  one  possible  successor,  viz.,  the  people,  as 
represented  by  the  Government 

The  only  possible  chance  of  retarding  the  approach  of 
Socialism,  is  to  stop  the  tendency  of  capital  to  congeal  in  a 
few  hands.  Some  plan  must  be  devised  to  prevent  Gould 
and  Yanderbilt  gobbling  up  more  railways;  to  keep  Astor's 
hands  off  city  lots,  and  to  check  Rockefeller's  insatiable  and 
omnivorous  appetite  for  industrial  plants.  It  requires  but 
slight  intelligence  to  comprehend  that  neither  a  high  nor  a 
low  tariff,  nor  free  trade,  would  appreciably  affect  Vander- 
bilt's  income.  Fiscal  legislation,  whether  it  takes  the  form 
of  free  coinage  of  silver,  lending  money  on  crops,  or  increas- 
ing paper  money  until  the  circulation  is  $50  or  $5,000  per 
capita,  will  never  divert  the  Pactolian  stream  which  flows  into 
Mr.  Gould's  golden  reservoir. 

Even  the  nationalization  of  the  railways  and  telegraphs, 
although  proposed  as  a  reactionary  measure  calculated  to  en- 
able farmers,  by  obtaining  lower  freight  rates,  to  increase 
their  margin  of  profit  sufficiently  to  enable  them  to  hold 
their  own  as  independent  producers,  would,  if  put  into  effect, 
but  precipitate  the  very  event  which  it  is  hoped  to  retard. 
Governmental  ownership  of  railways  would  involve  the  pay- 
ment of  several  thousand  million  dollars  to  the  present  owners 
of  railway  securities,  all  of  which  must  seek  reinvestment. 
Senator  Carlisle's  objection  as  to  the  difficulty  of  raising  the 
money  ■'or  such  a  purchase  is  trivial.  The  credit  of  the 
United  States  is  good  enough  to  float  bonds  for  many  times 
the  amount  required,  although  the  purchase  at  their  present 
fancy  valuation  of  watered  stocks  would  be  utterly  unwise 
and  unnecessary. 


A  Prophecy  of  1891.  49 

The  great  question  to  be  answered  in  order  to  avoid  a 
great  unemployed  problem,  as  stated,  is  for  the  present 
owners  to  find  a  safe  and  profitable  place  to  reinvest  the 
thousands  of  millions  of  dollars  received  in  exchange  for  their 
railways.  The  channels  for  profitable  investment  of  such 
a  large  amount  of  money  are  certainly  not  visible.  It  could 
not  be  spent  in  building  new  oil  refineries,  as  Mr.  Rocke- 
feller, of  the  Standard  Oil  Trust,  is  armed  with  statistics 
to  prove  that  there  are  too  many  oil  refineries  already.  The 
same  blockade  to  the  entrance  of  fresh  capital  into  the  build- 
ing of  more  sugar  refineries  is  also  sure  to  be  encountered, 
as  Mr.  Havemeyer,  of  that  trust,  says  that  he  is  compelled 
to  shut  down  part  of  the  refineries  already  in  existence,  to 
prevent  the  unprofitable  over-production  which  would  other- 
wise ensue.  That  there  is  absolutely  no  chance  at  all  to-day 
to  invest  any  considerable  amount  of  capital  in  building  new 
machinery  of  production  in  the  United  States,  is  a  palpable 
truism  with  financiers.  The  only  chance  for  an  individual  to 
invest  is  to  purchase  existing  plants,  but  that  simply  is  shift- 
ing the  solving  of  the  investment  problem  from  one  capitalist 
to  another,  and  usually  from  the  large  capitalist  to  the  small 
one. 

Nationalization  of  the  railways  in  the  United  States  would 
mean  the  immediate  expropriation  of  all  small  capitalists 
by  the  big  ones.  If  Gould,  Vanderbilt  &  Co.  cannot  own 
railways,  they  will  invest  their  money,  both  principal  and 
income,  in  flour  mills,  gas  works,  cotton  mills,  etc.,  and  the 
former  owners  of  those  industries  will  soon  be  enlisted  in 
the  ranks  of  the  proletariat  under  the  banner  of  Socialism. 
Nationalization  of  the  railways  could  not  possibly  be  effected 
without  causing  the  crystallization  of  all  capital  invested 
in  the  other  industries  of  the  United  States  in  the  hands  of 
such  a  comparatively  small  number  of  owners  that  the  ad- 
vent of  Socialism  would  certainly  be  almost  instantaneous. 

The  problem  of  giving  work  to  the  unemployed,  although 
not  at  present  a  threatening  one  in  the  United  States,  is, 
however,  destined  soon  to  become  one  of  the  utmost  import- 
ance, and  at  any  time  liable  to  come  to  the  front. 

There  are  at  present,  according  to  Carroll  D.  Wright's  gov- 
ernmental statistics,  on  an  average,  over  one  million  able- 
bodied  men  in  the  United  States  willing  to  work,  yet  unable 


50  Wilshire  Editorials. 

to  find  employment.  The  pressure  of  these  upon  the  ranks 
of  the  employed  effectually  prevents  wages  rising  above  the 
point  of  mere  subsistence.  Hence  the  very  fact  that  we  in 
the  United  States  have  such  a  fertile  soil,  in  such  unlimited 
quantities,  such  ingenious  labor-saving  machinery,  together 
with  an  industrious  and  intelligent  population,  tends  to 
make  the  problem  of  the  unemployed  but  the  more  threaten- 
ing, since  these  very  elements  only  conduce  to  an  enormous 
product  per  capita,  with  no  corresponding  methods  of  dis- 
tribution. The  old-time  argument,  that  our  great  farming 
population,  with  its  members  all  owning  their  own  homes, 
would  always  prove  an  insuperable  barrier  to  Socialism  in 
the  United  States,  is  completely  out  of  date  nowadays,  see- 
ing that  the  greater  part  of  our  farmers  are  already  prole- 
tarians, while  the  few  that  still  own  their  own  farms  are 
hopelessly  in  debt,  and  even  they  are  demanding  the  most 
Socialistic  measures,  such  as  national  warehouses  for  grain, 
and  nationalization  of  railways.  Considering  how  near  at 
hand  is  the  great  social  metamorphosis,  I  would  earnestly 
advise  the  readers  of  these  exceedingly  clever  and  able  essays 
to  give  them  deepest  thought.  They  express  clearly  the 
nature  of  the  crisis  through  which  we  are  now  passing,  a 
crisis  in  which  none  who  well  understand  it  can  fail  to  be 
vitally  interested.  We  are  now  swinging  on  the  hinge  of 
destiny,  we  are  in  the  transition  state  of  the  greatest  socio- 
logic  event  that  history  has  yet  recorded.  Let  him  who 
runs,  read. 


Hop  Lee  and  the  Pelican.  51 


HOP  LEE  AND  THE  PELICAN. 

HOP  LEE  was  an  intelligent  young  Chinaman,  born  of 
poor  but  honest  parents,  upon  the  banks  of  the  Yellow 
Kiver.  From  early  childhood  he  had  been  accustomed 
to  assist  in  getting  a  living  for  himself  and  the  other  mem- 
bers of  his  family  by  fishing  with  the  ordinary  rod  and  line. 
Although  this  primitive  method  of  gaining  a  livelihood  had 
been  followed  by  his  father  and  by  his  forefathers  for  many 
centuries,  it  remained  for  Hop  Lee  to  improve  upon  it  so 
that  it  yielded  such  rich  returns  that  he  could  live  sumptu- 
ously without  working;  and  this  tale  is  to  show  how  success- 
fully he  worked  out  his  plan. 

It  was  not  so  much  a  brilliant  burst  of  genius  as  it  was 
the  spur  of  necessity  which  led  Hoppy  to  his  great  discovery. 
As  he  sat  on  the  bank  with  his  empty  basket  beside  him, 
and  fished  in  vain  day  after  day,  he  watched  with  deep 
chagrin  a  gay  flock  of  pelicans  that  came  down  upon  the 
waters  in  which  he,  alas,  fished  so  fruitlessly,  and  filled  them- 
selves to  repletion. 

Not  only  was  he  envious  of  the  success  of  the  pelicans,  but 
he  realized  that  the  noise  and  splashing  they  made  drove 
away  from  his  hook  many  fish  which  he  otherwise  might  have 
caught. 

Poor  Hoppy  pondered  long  upon  this  distressing  situation. 
He  watched  the  pelicans  moodily  as  they  gaily  dived  to  the 
bottom  of  the  river,  waving  their  web-feet  in  the  air,  and 
triumphantly  bringing  up  fish  after  fish  which  they  stored 
away  in  their  pouches  to  be  devoured  at  leisure  when  the 
day's  sport  was  over,  or  fed  to  their  young.  Finally,  one 
bright  day,  a  brilliant  idea  occurred  to  him  whereby  he 
would  not  only  prevent  the  pelicans  from  driving  away  his 
fish,  but  would  actually  compel  them  to  deliver  to  him  the  fish 
they  caught  and  fill  up  his  empty  basket.  But  how  to  put  his 
ingenious  plan  in  operation?  Flattery  should  be  the  key 
to  success. 

How  he  ever  did  it  I  don't  pretend  to  know,  but  somehow 


52  Wilshire  Editorials. 

or  other  he  learned  the  pelican  language.  This  was  the 
first  step  towards  his  goal.  Then  he  provided  himself  with 
a  polished  ring  of  brass,  and  betook  himself  bright  and  early, 
in  the  morning  to  his  usual  post  on  the  river  bank.  In  a 
tentative  way  he  spoke  to  several  pelicans  as  they  glided 
past  him  on  the  river,  till  finally  one  of  them  stopped  to 
have  a  little  chat  with  him.  Hoppy  seized  his  opportunity, 
and  with  soft,  insidious  words  beguiled  the  foolish  bird  up 
on  the  bank.  Then  he  proceeded  to  tell  it  how  much  its 
wonderful  pelicanic  beauty  would  be  enhanced  by  a  lovely 
necklace  like  the  one  he  held  in  his  hand.  Would  the  pelican 
not  allow  him  the  pleasure  of  seeing  the  necklace  around 
its  graceful  neck?  The  pelican  foolishly  listened  to  Hoppy's 
flattering  words,  and  consented  to  be  decorated.  You  could 
see  from  the  beatific  expression  on  its  face  as  the  ring  was 
slipped  over  its  head  how  pleased  it  was  with  the  beautiful 
necklet. 

To  Hoppy,  however,  the  ring  was  strictly  an  object  of 
utility.  As  soon  as  the  ring  was  around  the  pelican's  neck, 
the  unlucky  bird  found  it  impossible  to  swallow  the  fish  it 
caught.  Every  time  it  tried  it  found  itself  almost  choking 
to  death,  and  at  last,  in  desperation,  appealed  to  Hoppy  to 
save  its  life.  Hoppy,  who  was  at  hand  upon  the  bank 
eagerly  awaiting  developments,  was  only  too  glad  to  spring 
to  the  pelican's  assistance  and  promptly  remove  the  fish  from 
its  throat  and  thus  prevent  its  untimely  demise. 

The  pelican's  gratitude  and  joy  were  unbounded  when 
Hoppy  relieved  it  of  the  fish.  It  felt  its  palpitating  heart 
go  out  of  its  throat  back  into  its  breast  again;  but  it  also 
saw  the  fish  go  out  of  its  throat  and  into  Hoppy's  basket. 
Its  distressed  throat  was  relieved  of  a  heart  and  a  fish  at 
the  same  time. 

Hoppy  then  proceeded  in  a  friendly  tone  to  advise  the 
pelican  for  its  own  good.  *You  can  easily  see,"  he  said, 
"that  you  cannot  continue  to  wear  that  ornamental  ring 
about  your  throat  and  at  the  same  time  swallow  as  large  a 
fish  as  you  used  to  do.  Of  course,  I  know  you  do  not  wish 
to  part  with  that  thing  of  beauty  about  your  lovely  neck 
merely  for  the  sake  of  having  your  stomach  filled.  Now 
that  you  have  seen  how  beautiful  it  has  made  you,  I  feel  that 
there  is  no  way  of  your  living  without  it,    One  gets  used  to 


Hop  Lee  and  the  Pelican.  53 

luxuries  so  quickly  they  become  necessities.  So,  in  future, 
when  you  catch  a  fish  you  must  always  come  to  me  to  be 
relieved,  and  I  will  be  ready  and  only  too  glad  to  help  you. 
Of  course,  I  will  see  that  you  shall  be  fed.  I  will  take  the 
fish  to  my  chopping  block,  and  cut  off  and  give  you  as  large 
a  piece  as  you  can  politely  swallow.  In  this  way  your  life 
will  be  saved,  and  you  will  be  fed  with  food  that  is  the  right 
size  for  you  in  your  new  and  improved  condition.  At  the 
same  time  I,  too,  will  be  fed  by  taking  the  fish  that  you  are 
now  unable  to  swallow,  as  a  small  return  for  the  assistance 
I  shall  lend  you." 

Hop  Lee  had  made  a  grand  discovery,  how  to  live  without 
working,  and  at  the  same  time  had  convinced  the  pelican 
that  it  was  only  through  the  exercise  of  his  great  brain 
power  and  generosity  that  it  was  able  to  escape  being  choked 
to  death  when  it  tried  to  eat  the  fish  it  caught. 

Hop  Lee  waxed  fat  on  this  arrangement.  After  the  first 
pelican  got  the  ring  about  its  neck,  all  the  other  pelicans 
were  anxious  to  get  rings  about  their  necks  and  be  in  the 
fashion,  and  very  soon  Hoppy  had  all  the  pelicans  on  the 
river  busily  and  cheerfully  engaged  in  catching  fish  for  him. 
And  so  it  happens  that,  even  to  this  day,  Hop  Lee  and  all 
his  descendants  have  a  prospect  of  living  indefinitely  on  the 
banks  of  the  Yellow  Eiver  in  ease  and  plenty. 

Of  course,  as  the  natural  reward  of  his  industry  and  ab- 
stinence, the  ingenious  Hoppy  speedily  accumulated  a  for- 
tune from  the  sale  of  the  fish  caught  by  the  pelicans.  In 
time  he  made  a  tour  of  the  world.  When  he  visited  America 
he  was  introduced  to  Mr.  Pierpont  Morgan.  It  is  related 
on  good  authority  that  he  was  highly  amused  at  the  striking 
resemblance  between  that  gentleman's  ideas  and  his  own. 
Hoppy  saw  immediately  that  the  American  workingman  had 
put  a  ring  about  his  throat  which  forced  him  to  give  up  the 
fish  he  catches  to  Mr.  Morgan  and  to  be  satisfied  with  a  tail 
diet.  "The  ring  is  a  little  less  tangible,  to  be  sure,  than 
that  about  the  necks  of  our  pelicans,"  thought  Hoppy,  "but 
it  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  The  competitive  wage-system 
forces  the  laborer  to  take  a  wage  that  will  just  give  him  a 
living.  He  cannot  ask  for  any  more,  because  there  are  plenty 
of  men  waiting  around  for  the  chance  to  work  upon  the  basis 
of  the  fish-tail  diet.    As  long  as  pelicans  or  workingmen  are 


54  Wilshiee  Editorials. 

satisfied  with,  fish  tails  there  is  no  use  giving  them  more, 
whether  you  be  a  Morgan  or  a  Hop  Lee.  Hence  the  American 
workingman  produces  his  $2,400  a  year  and  gives  up  all  hut 
the  $400  fish  tail  to  Mr.  Morgan,  just  as  the  pelican  catches 
2,400  pounds  of  good  fish  and  gets  only  400  pounds  of  fish- 
tails in  return;  yet  both  the  pelican  and  the  American  work- 
ingman get  down  and  thank  God  that  such  men  as  Morgan 
and  Hop  Lee  live  to  prevent  pelicans  and  workingmen  from 
starving  to  death. 

Hoppy  congratulated  himself,  however,  on  being  in  a  much 
safer  position  than  Mr.  Morgan,  for  if  his  pelicans  ever  got 
over  their  feeling  of  gratitude  and  pride  in  their  rings  they 
could  not  get  them  off  their  necks,  even  if  they  wished; 
whereas  Mr.  Morgan's  pelican  workingmen  always  have  the 
opportunity  of  taking  the  competitive  ring  off  their  necks. 
The  American  pelicans  have  merely  to  "wish  the  ring  off," 
and  off  it  goes.  The  way  for  them  to  express  this  wish  is 
to  vote  for  Socialism.  A  great  many  American  pelicans  de- 
cided to  wish  this  ring  off  their  necks  at  the  last  election. 
Unfortunately  there  were  still  more  who  wished  to  keep  it 
about  their  necks,  so  Mr.  Morgan  still  gets  the  fish  and  Uncle 
Sam  gets  the  tail. 


A  Talk  with  Rockefeller.  55 


A  TALK  WITH  ROCKEFELLER. 

LAST  March,  while  on  my  way  from  Los  Angeles  to 
San  Francisco,  I  had  occasion  to  stop  over  a  few  days 
at  Santa  Barbara,  one  of  the  most  famous  of  the 
California  resorts.  Except  for  the  want  of  angels,  it  is  about 
as  near  an  Earthly  Paradise  as  one  can  imagine.  It  is 
directly  on  the  Pacific  Ocean  at  the  opening  of  a  lovely  little 
valley.  At  the  head  of  the  valley,  under  the  mountains, 
about  two  miles  from  the  sea,  is  the  old  Franciscan  monas- 
tery built  by  the  monks  a  hundred  years  or  more  ago,  when 
California  was  under  the  dominion  of  Spain.  The  Church 
of  Rome  had  in  hand  a  grand  plan  to  convert  the  Indians 
to  Catholicism  by  the  establishment  of  a  chain  of  semi- 
socialistic  communities,  under  the  rule  of  the  priests,  running 
from  San  Francisco  all  the  way  down  to  the  lower  end  of 
the  peninsula  of  California. 

With  the  ceding  of  California  to  the  United  States,  the 
monasteries  had  a  hard  time  to  survive,  for  the  property 
they  had  owned  was  largely  lost,  and  the  Indians,  who  had 
been  faithful  workers  in  their  fields  and  vineyards,  were 
dispersed.  Probably  at  no  time  before,  and  certainly  at  no 
time  since,  have  the  California  Indians  had  either  the  ma- 
terial or  the  spiritual  advantages  that  they  enjoyed  under 
the  kindly  rule  of  the  old  Mission  Padres. 

In  the  old  days  the  missions  were  surrounded  by  great 
stretches  of  pasture  land  upon  which  grazed  countless  herds 
of  sheep,  cattle  and  horses,  all  the  property  of  the  Padres, 
and  used  to  contribute  to  the  welfare  of  all.  The  monks 
introduced  a  good  system  of  irrigation.  The  fig,  the  vine, 
the  olive  and  the  orange  were  cultivated  with  greatest  suc- 
cess. Then  the  more  that  was  produced,  the  more  the 
monks  and  the  Indians  got.  There  was  no  fear  of  starvation 
on  account  of  "over-production"  in  those  silly,  primitive 
days.     They  produced  for  use  and  not  for  profit. 

I  can  imagine  how  astounded  one  of  the  old  Padres  would 
have  been  if  told  that  he  would  be  forced  to  go  without  olive 
oil  some  day  if  too  many  olive  trees  came  into  bearing, 
because  the  price  of  olive  oil  would  fall  below  the  cost  of 
production.     Such  reasoning  would  have  been  absolutely  in- 


56  Wilshire  Editorials. 

comprehensible  to  him.  For  me  to  have  told  him  that  the 
mission  must  go  hungry  simply  because  there  were  too  many 
fat  cattle  would  have  led  him  to  regard  me  as  a  fit  subject 
for  a  "rest  cure."  However,  in  those  careless  days  they 
had  no  "rest  cures/'  for  paradoxically  everyone  had  to  do 
enough  work  not  to  require  a  "rest." 

The  people  who  most  require  a  "rest"  are  those  that  do 
not  "have  to"  work.  I  don't  say  they  do  not  actually  work 
hard,  I  say  they  do  not  "have  to"  work  at  all.  There  is 
a  fine  distinction.  Schwab  never  broke  down  until  he  worked 
because  he  "wanted  to." 

However,  we  are  in  the  days  when  people  do  need  a  "rest 
cure,"  and  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller  showed  his  usual  good 
judgment  in  picking  out  Santa  Barbara  to  get  his  needed 
"rest." 

The  Hotel  Potter  is  directly  on  the  .sea ;  it  is  a  fine,  mod- 
ern hotel,  opened  this  season  for  the  first  time,  and  Mr. 
Rockefeller  was  not  by  any  means  the  only  multi-millionaire 
there  enjoying  the  perfect  climate  of  Santa  Barbara,  a 
climate  as  perfect  in  winter  as  in  summer. 

The  local  Santa  Barbara  paper  proudly  printed  a  list  of 
our  American  nobility  there,  gauging  the  relative  value  of 
titles  by  the  size  of  the  bank  rolls.  The  total  value  footed 
up  to  something  near  a  thousand  million  dollars,  which  can 
be  readily  believed  when  I  say  that  not  only  were  the  Rocke- 
fellers there,  but  also  Mrs.  Pierpont  Morgan,  Mr.  Marshall 
Field,  Mr.  Armour,  Mr.  Seward  Webb,  and  other  noble 
multi-millionaires  too  numerous  to  mention.  Robert  T.  Lin- 
coln, son  of  Abraham,  was  there,  and  scheduled  at  ten  million. 
However,  of  all  the  lot,  Mr.  Rockefeller  being  the  richest 
was  the  noblest,  and  was  the  centre  of  attraction  from  all 
Santa  Barbara,  including  myself. 

Mr.  Rockefeller,  I  may  say  in  the  first  place,  is  not  by  any 
means  the  physical  wreck  that  the  press  likes  to  make  him 
out.  I  sat  at  the  next  table  to  him  and  can  vouch  for  the 
strength  and  variety  of  his  appetite.  His  color  is  good  and 
he  looks  a  fairly  healthy  man  for  his  age,  64,  with  the 
exception  that  he  has  lost  every  spear  of  hair  from  his 
head  and  face.  He  was  most  affable  and  approachable  to 
everyone  and  seemed  to  make  a  point  of  going  the  rounds 
every  day  with  a  glad  hand  out  for  everyone.    His  interest 


A  Talk  with  Rockefeller.  57 

in  life  seems  to  be  centered  on  the  game  of  golf.  Knowing 
that  his  nervous  system  is  so  wrecked  that  he  can  not  care 
to  burden  his  mind  with  anything  very  strenuous,  I  really  />•" 
felt  conscience-stricken  in  ever  departing  from  the  subject 
of  the  weather  and  golf  in  my  talks  with  him.  However, 
one  day  I  did  bring  up  the  subject  of  Trusts.  He  listened 
with  interest  to  my  exposition  of  the  Socialist  philosophy 
regarding  monopoly  and  said,  "Well,  Mr.  Wilshire,  I  can't 
speak  as  to  other  Trusts,  but  certainly  as  far  as  the  Stand- 
ard is  concerned  over-production  of  oil  led  to  the  formation 
of  the  Trust.  We  were  producing  three  times  as  much  oil 
as  could  be  sold  and  the  trade  was  in  a  very  bad  way.  The 
Trust  resulted  in  the  greatest  benefit  to  the  refiners  and  at 
the  same  time  .the  general  public  were  also  benefited  by  get- 
ting lower  prices." 

Mr.  Rockefeller  inquired  if  I  had  read  the  articles  by 
Miss  Tarbell  upon  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  now  running  in 
McClure's  Magazine.  "All  without  foundation,"  he  said, 
"the  idea  of  the  Standard  forcing  anyone  to  sell  his  refinery 
to  it  is  absurd.  The  refiners  wanted  to  sell  to  us  and  nobody 
that  has  sold  and  worked  with  us  but  has  made  money  and 
is  glad  he  did  so. 

"Now  you,  Mr.  Wilshire,  are  personally  acquainted  with 
so  and  so  (mentioning  men,  our  mutual  friends,  interested 
in  the  Trust),  and  you  know  that  such  honorable  men  would 
not  do  anything  maliciously  to  injure  anyone.  You  know 
they  all  did  well  by  coming  into  the  Trust.  I  can  tell  you 
that  everyone  else  has  done  well  that  came  in  with  us.  It's 
absurd  to  say  that  the  Standard  forced  the  refiners  into  the 
Trust.  They  were  only  too  glad  to  come  in  and  they  have  all 
made  money  by  coming  in.  Natural  conditions  would  have 
ruined  us  all  if  we  had  not  formed  a  combination.  I  thought^ 
once  of  having  an  ansv/er  made  to  the  McClure  articles,"  con-"~~^ 
tinued  Mr.  Rockefeller,  "but  you  know  it  has  always  been  the 
policy  of  the  Standard  to  keep  silent  under  attack  and  let  our 
acts  speak  for  themselves,  and  I  suppose  it  is  the  best  policy 
for  us  to  continue  upon  that  line,  don't  you,  Mr.  Wilshire  ?" 

I  was  quite  overcome  with  confusion  at  having  the  richest 
man  in  the  world  seek  the  advice  of  a  Socialist  upon  a 
question  of  personal  conduct  and  could  do  no  more  than 
blurt  out  a  general  assent  to  his  position. 


58  Wilshire  Editorials. 

"Don't  you  think,  Mr.  Rockefeller,"  said  I,  "that  since 
the  Trust  is,  according  to  your  own  theory,  a  result  of  over- 
production, it  means  we  are  approaching  a  time  when  the 
general  stoppage  of  this  unnecessary  production  by  the 
Trusts  will  have  the  tendency  to  create  an  unemployed 
problem  ?" 

"No,"  said  Mr.  Kockefeller,  "I  think  the  Trust,  by  regula- 
ting industry  and  systematizing  business,  will  help  keep  up 
this  present  prosperity.  We  have  never  had  such  a  period 
in  the  history  of  the  country  before,  and  yet  there  never 
were  so  many  Trusts,  hence  it  cannot  be  said  that  Trusts 
prevent  prosperity.  There  are  less  unemployed  men  than 
ever  before  known  in  the  history  of  the  country.  And,  anyway, 
since  we  are  both  agreed  that  an  anti-Trust  law  is  absurd, 
since  it  is  attempting  to  prevent  the  consequences  of  over- 
production, how  would  you  propose  to  solve  the  Trust 
Problem?" 

"Yes,  Mr.  Rockefeller,  I  am  as  much  aware  of  the  futility 
of  anti-Trust  laws  as  you  are.  The  Socialist  remedy  for  the 
Trusts  is  Government  Ownership." 

"Do  you  think  the  Government  could  run  the  Standard  as 
well  as  we  run  it?"  asked  Mr.  Rockefeller. 

"I  would  not  be  positive  that  the  State  could  run  the 
Trusts  any  better  than  you  and  Mr.  Morgan  do,  speaking 
from  the  standpoint  of  industrial  efficiency,  but  Government 
Ownership  is  a  necessary  basis  for  the  operation  of  the  co- 
operative wage  system  which  must  supersede  the  present  com- 
petitive system  to  allow  us  to  escape  an  unemployed  problem, 
which  is  simply  the  result  of  competition  among  laborers, 
forcing  wages  down  so  low  that  the  laborer  cannot  buy  what 
he  produces." 

"But  we  have  no  'unemployed  question.'  We  never  had 
such  a  demand  for  labor  before,"  returned  Mr.  Rockefeller. 

"Yes,  that  is  true,"  said  I,  "but  I  am  looking  into  the 
future,  and  I  can  see  an  inevitable  unemployed  problem 
looming  up  there.  The  Trust  is  meeting  a  present  emerg- 
ency, but  it  is  only  a  temporary  stopgap,  and  it  is  not  in  the 
least  going  to  be  able  to  solve  the  unemployed  problem  of 
the  future." 

"Well,  Mr.  Wilshire,  I  am  not  looking  ahead  as  far  as 
you  are.     Business  is  to-day  good,  and  I  think  it  will  con- 


A  Talk  with  Rockefeller.  59 

tinue  so.  If  it  does  not,  then  we  must  let  the  future  settle 
its  own  problems." 

"Well,  anyway,  Mr.  Rockefeller,  I  am  very  glad  to  have 
had  the  opportunity  of  having  had  this  talk  with  you,  for 
I  feel  that  when  the  industrial  crisis  does  come  up  in  the 
future,  it  will  help  very  much  for  us  to  understand  each 
other's  position.  There  is  nothing  better  than  having  men 
like  you  and  me,  who  have  a  common  interest,  coming  into 
personal  contact  with  each  other.  While  our  views  are  dif- 
ferent, yet  our  having  met  will  lead  us  to  have  more  respect 
for  the  sincerity  of  our  mutual  opinions,  and  our  personal 
good  faith." 

"That  is  quite  right,  Mr.  Wilshire,"  said  Mr.  Rockefeller, 
"and  I  am  very  glad  to  have  had  the  pleasure  of  this  talk 
with  you." 

This  closed  the  interview  upon  the  Trust  Problem,  for 
although  I  talked  with  Mr.  Rockefeller  a  number  of  times 
afterward,   it   was   nothing  but  "golf  and  weather." 

I  am  satisfied  from  my  talk  with  Mr.  Rockefeller  that  he 
is  true  to  himself.  He  thinks  he  is  all  right.  He  thinks 
that  his  business  methods  have  not  only  been  the  best  for 
himself  and  his  fellow  stockholders,  but  also  for  the  public 
generally.  Mr.  Rockefeller  is  in  no  sense  a  man  of  theories. 
He  sees  a  present  necessity,  and  he  acts  upon  it  without 
considering  what  will  be  the  next  step.  He  is  democratic 
and  without  envy  in  his  manner  and  instincts,  and  I  am 
sure  he  would  like  to  have  all  his  brother  Americans  have 
as  much  money  as  he  has.  Ostentation  is  an  unknown  word 
for  him.  His  is  the  instinct  of  the  coral  insect  that  thinks 
of  nothing  more  than  the  next  infinitesimal  layer  it  is  laying 
upon  the  coral  reef  that  founds  a  future  continent.  Mr. 
Rockefeller  is  the  power  behind  Mr.  Morgan's  throne,  and 
he  does  not  emerge  into  the  light,  not  because  he  objects  to 
the  world-glare  in  which  Mr.  Morgan  basks,  but  simply 
because  pomp  and  glory  are  matters  of  indifference  to  him. 
He  has  no  pleasure  in  making  a  show  of  himself.  Some 
newly  rich  men  envy  the  footmen  on  the  box  of  their  car- 
riage, owing  to  their  conspicuous  position  and  their  gaudy 
livery.  Mr.  Rockefeller  is  not  of  that  sort.  He  rides  in 
his  carriage  not  to  exhibit  himself  and  his  wealth,  but  to 
"get  there,"  and  he  does  "get  there,"  too. 


60  Wilshire  Editorials. 

I  do  not  think  this  is  at  all  an  unnatural  view  for  me  to 
take  of  Mr.  Rockefeller's  philosophy  of  life.  It  is  the  phil- 
osophy held  by  all  normal  men  and  I  think  Mr.  Rockefeller 
perfectly  normal  except  for  the  having  of  an  unusual  ability 
in  the  art  of  the  making  of  money. 

^  "We  live  to  live,  not  to  let  other  people  know  we  are  alive. 
I  aon't  wear  clothes  for  ornament,  but  for  warmth.  I  don't 
go  to  the  opera  to  exhibit  myself  to  other  people,  but  to 
satisfy  my  ears  and  eyes. 

The  squirrel  does  not  lay  up  his  winter  store  of  nuts  in 
order  to  make  other  squirrels  envious  of  him,  nor  yet  to 
have  them  admire  his  wealth  and  foresight.  He  lays  up 
his  nuts  for  the  one  and  single  purpose  of  feeding  himself 
when  the  snow  covers  the  ground  and  when  if  he  had  no 
store  on  hand  he  would  starve. 

The  Bees  act  on  the  same  instinct.  In  California  the 
Bees  living  in  a  climate  where  there  are  flowers  all  the  year 
round  follow  up  their  old  instinct  developed  under  different 
climatic  conditions,  of  gathering  honey  for  a  winter  that 
never  comes  and  consequently  laying  up  immense  stores  of 
honey  that  is  never  consumed  at  all  and  simply  goes  to  waste 
unless  man  wandering  in  the  forest  happens  accidentally 
to  find  the  bee  tree. 

Mr.  Rockefeller  is  like  the  California  Bee.  He  is  obeying 
a  fundamental  instinct  to  accumulate,  although  the  original 
incentive  for  laying  up  more  wealth  has  long  since  ceased.' 
However,  it  is  just  as  much  a  part  of  his  life  to  go  on 
accumulating  wealth  which  he  cannot  consume  as  it  is  for 
the  California  Bee  to  accumulate  honey  which  she  cannot 
consume.  You  no  more  could  reason  Mr.  Rockefeller  out  of 
following  up  his  irresistible  instinct  than  you  could  success- 
fully reason  with  a  Bee.  For  even  suppose  you  could  teach 
a  Bee  the  futility  of  gathering  honey  which  would  never 
be  eaten,  what  a  miserable  little  Bee  you  would  make  feeding 
her  on  the  Fruit  of  the  Tree  of  Economic  Knowledge.  How 
could  the  poor  Bee  pass  away  the  time  if  she  could  not  gather 
honey?  Would  you  teach  her  to  play  golf?  Would  you 
teach  her  to  gamble  with  her  sister  Bees,  to  see  which  Bee 
should  have  the  most  of  the  Useless  Honey  that  no  Bee 
wanted  anyway  because  there  was  already  too  much  on  hand? 

No,  if  you  had  a  kind  heart  you  would  let  the  poor  Bee 


A  Talk  with  Rockefeller.  61 

go  on  for  the  rest  of  her  Bee  life  gathering  honey,  even 
though  you  knew  she  was  making  something  that  would  be  of 
no  use. 

For  the  Bee  to  be  happy  she  must  be  a  Busy  Bee.  Her 
problem  in  life  is  not  to  own  honey,  but  to  make  honey.  I 
don't  know  that  Browning  was  thinking  of  either  Busy  Bees 
or  Busy  Rockefellers  when  he  wrote: — 

The  common  problem,  yours,  mine,  every  one's* 
Is — not  to  fancy  what  were  fair  in  life 
Provided  it  could  be — but,  finding  first 
What  may  be,  then,  how  to  make  it  fair 
Up  to  our  means;  a  very  different  thing! 

But  his  philosophy  was  all  right,  just  the  same. 

Now,  you  can't  introduce  any  game  to  a  Bee  that  will 
let  her  be  a  Lazy  Bee  and  yet  imagine  herself  a  Busy  Bee. 
You  can't  make  her  drunk,  for  instance,  and  make  her  think 
she  is  doing  great  stunts  in  the  honey-making  line,  while, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  she  is  fast  asleep  in  the  club  window 
of  the  Hive.  Neither  can  you  get  her  to  chase  around  the 
Golf  Links  of  a  Honeyless  Garden  pretending  to  gather 
honey,  but  in  reality  simply  playing  in  a  make-believe  Game 
of  Life. 

Now,  with  Mr.  Rockefeller  it's  all  different.  He  has  a 
man's  imagination,  and  so  you  can  fool  him.  On  nice, 
clear  days  you  can  set  him  to  playing  golf,  and  he  will  forget 
all  about  the  real  Game  of  Life  and  enjoy  the  imitation 
more  than  he  ever  enjoyed  the  real.  At  least,  he  thinks  he 
does,  and  this  is  the  same  thing. 

Then,  on  rainy  days,  you  can  let  him  stay  in  the  Club, 
and  by  sundry  and  judicious  Scotch  High-balls  you  can  fool 
him  into  thinking  he  is  doing  things  when  he  is,  in  reality, 
not  even  walking  around  a  golf  links.  Oh,  it's  a  great  thing 
to  be  a  Man  rather  than  a  Bee. 

But  there  is  another  difference,  too.  The  Bee  gathers  her 
honey  in  a  fair  field,  one  that  is  freely  open  to  all  Bees.  Mr. 
Rockefeller  gathers  his  honey  from  a  private  preserve.  Here 
we  have  a  great  United  States  Flower  Garden  and  plenty 
of  Honey  for  All.  Years  ago  our  grandfathers  made  a  very 
silly  arrangement  with  certain  people,  whereby  Mr.  Rocke- 
feller owns  this  Flower  Garden.  We  gather  the  Honey  for 
him,  and  he  gives  us  of  the  Honey  such  a  share  that  will 


62  Wilshire  Editorials. 

keep  us  sufficiently  alive  that  we  may  have  strength  enough 
to  fly  around  and  continue  the  gathering  of  still  more  honey 
for  him.  I  say  this  was  a  silly  arrangement,  for  there  was 
no  reason  why  we  should  not,  in  our  Own  Country,  our  Own 
United  States,  our  Own  Flower  Garden,  have  all  the 
honey  we  might  make  for  our  own  selves,  instead  of  giving 
up  three-quarters  to  capitalists  like  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  Mr. 
Morgan.  However,  our  grandfathers  made  the  agreement 
and  we  grandchildren  seemed  to  think  that  neither  should 
we  ourselves  back  out  of  it,  and  that  we  should,  moreover, 
pledge  our  own  grandchildren  to  continue  the  arrangement 
perpetually. 

The  trouble  that  is  now  vexing  our  souls,  however,  is  a 
very  serious  one.  We  thought  our  contract  carried  with  it 
the  implication  that  as  long  as  we  were  willing  to  gather 
honey  from  the  National  Garden  for  Mr.  Rockefeller  and 
Mr.  Morgan,  that  they  would  be  willing  to  let  us  in  the 
field  and  to  gather  and  get  our  one-fourth  of  the  gathering. 
It  appears  we  made  a  mistake.  Mr.  Rockefeller  is  now  say- 
ing that  he  has  all  the  Honey  he  wants  and  that  there  is 
no  use  of  our  making  what  he  don't  want.  He  has  formed 
his  Trust  for  the  express  purpose  of  fencing  us  out  of  the 
Garden  of  Earth.  We  cannot  deny  that  he  has  much  more 
Honey  than  he  can  use  because  his  big  Standard  Hive  is 
the  most  conspicuous  thing  in  the  field. 

No,  we  cannot  deny  that  our  labor  has  become  useless  to 
him,  for  he  has  all  he  wants,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
also  cannot  see  how  we  are  going  to  get  any  Honey  for 
ourselves  when  the  big  Trust  Screen  is  completed  and  we 
are  denied  access  to  the  Flower  Garden  of  Life.  We  are 
very  reluctantly  being  forced  to  see  that  we  must  own  the 
Earth  ourselves  if  we  expect  to  have  the  right  at  any  and 
all  times  of  entry  into  the  National  Garden  to  supply  our- 
selves with  the  needful  Honey. 

When  the  Nation  Owns  the  Trust  Hive  all  us  American 
Busy  Bees  will  have  the  right  to  enter  and  make  Honey  and 
partake  of  the  common  store  gathered  by  all. 

If  we  wish  to  have  what  we  gather  let  us  Bees  Get  Busy. 

"Let  the  Nation  Own  the  Honey  Trust," 


The  True  Joy  of  Life.  63 


f 


THE  TRUE  JOY   OF   LIFE 

THERE  is  but  one  true  Elixir  of  Life,  and  that  is  to  live. 
A  great  many  people  think  they  are  living  when  in 
reality  they  are  simply  letting  their  bodies  and  souls 
undergo  a  process  of  decay.  Some  who  are  sure  they  are 
living  are  simply  burning  themselves  up.  To  really  live  and 
be  respectable  under  modern  conditions  is  possible  but  for  a 
favored  few,  favored  either  by  heredity  or  environment,  or 
both,  and  of  those  few  there  are  but  a  fraction  who  take  ad- 
vantage of  their  possibilities.  What  with  the  difficulties  of 
steering  a  career  between  being  eminently  respectable  and 
disgracefully  dissipated,  few  escape  wrecking  their  souls.  The 
very  first  requisite  of  respectability  is  to  conform  your 
thoughts  and  actions  to  those  of  the  community  among  whom 
it  happens  to  be  your  lot  in  life  to  be  thrown.  A  buried 
corpse  conforms  to  its  surrounding  soil.  It  finally  becomes 
undistinguishable  from  the  soil  itself.  It  is  the  soil.  An 
acorn  buried  in  the  soil  is  a  thing  of  life  because  it  refuses 
conformity.  It  becomes  the  glorious  oak.  The  dead  man  is 
always  respectable;  the  live  man  never,  if  he  really  lives.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  just  as  much  against  life  to  dissipate 
and  burn  up  your  energies  in  living  a  life  which  the  re- 
spectable call  disreputable  as  it  is  to  deaden  yourself  by 
leading  the  life  the  disreputable  sneer  at  as  "respectable." 

To  live  is  simply  to  express  yourself — to  express  yourself 
physically,  mentally  and  spiritually. 

You  cannot  live  if  you  do  not  express  yourself,  and  you 
are  not  expressing  yourself  when  you  think,  speak  and  act 
in  a  certain  manner — not  because  that  is  your  way — but 
because  it  is  the  way  of  someone  else — because  it  is  re- 
spectable. 

We  live  for  the  sake  of  experiencing  sensations.  Every 
natural  movement  of  the  mind  or  body  gives  us  a  pleasurable 
sensation.  If  we  are  unable  to  exercise  our  functions  prop- 
erly and  normalty,  the  desire  for  the  sensations  which  would 


64  Wilshire  Editorials. 

have  been  the  result  of  such  exercise,  leads  us  to  offer  our- 
selves a  sensation  more  or  less  similar  to  one  derived  from 
exercise,  but  induced  by  the  use  of  a  narcotic  or  a  stimulant. 

A  man  working  all  day  in  a  dismal  coal  mine,  denied  all 
sight  of  the  beauties  of  nature,  develops  unconsciously,  per- 
haps, an  intense  longing  for  the  sight  of  trees  and  grass  and 
flowers  and  sunshine.  He  cannot  satisfy  that  longing.  To 
support  life  he  must  stay  down  in  the  mine.  Is  it  then  a 
wonder  that  he  takes  whiskey  which  will  at  least  give  a 
certain  stimulus  to  the  sensations  which  his  nature  so  im- 
peratively demands?  Granted  that  the  exhilaration  caused 
by  the  whiskey  is  altogether  of  a  baser  kind  than  the  exhil- 
aration caused  by  the  sight  of  a  green  sward,  still  it  at  least 
does  take  the  man  away  from  himself  and  his  environment, 
and  this  is  an  effect  that  seems  a  psychological  necessity  to 
men  living  unnatural  lives. 

It  is  well  enough  for  the  man,  whose  life  itself  is  a  dream 
in  the  eyes  of  the  miner,  to  berate  the  miner  for  his  drunken- 
ness. But  he  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  only  time  the 
miner  ever  feels  he  is  living,  is  when  he  can  get  away  from 
his  real  life  by  deadening  his  nerves  with  whiskey  to  such 
an  extent  that  his  environment  becomes  subordinate  to  an 
imaginary  one. 

We  universally  excuse  a  man  for  drugging  himself  when 
he  is  about  to  undergo  a  surgical  operation.  If  whiskey 
could  be  used  instead  of  ether  for  the  anaesthetic,  who  would 
blame  a  man  for  drinking  it  when  his  leg  had  to  be  sawed 
off?  After  the  operation,  for  weeks  the  man  may  be  in  pain. 
We  do  not  frown  upon  his  taking  opium.  But  let  him  re- 
cover from  the  physical  pain,  and  then  take  opium  or  whis- 
key to  rid  himself  of  a  spiritual  pain  and  we  at  once  view 
him  with  scorn,  notwithstanding  that  we  all  say  the  pain  of 
the  mind  is  greater  than  that  of  the  body.  It  is  natural  for 
man  to  escape  pain,  and  if  he  cannot  escape  the  pain  itself, 
he  will  do  the  next  best  thing — deaden  himself  to  the  sen- 
sation. 

A  healthy  man  in  a  natural,  healthy  environment  will  never 
think  of  narcotizing  himself.  He  will  not  wish  to  lose  any 
of  his  sensations — any  of  his  life. 

A  man  goes  to  the  opera,  but  certainly  does  not  take  a 
sleeping  potion  beforehand.     Not  at  all;  he  wishes  all  his 


The  True  Joy  of  Life.  65 

senses  with  him.  He  wants  to  be  fully  alive  in  order  to  enjoy 
every  moment. 

You  could  not  think  of  a  man  wishing  to  get  drunk  in 
heaven.  It  is  an  absurdity.  Yet,  if  a  man  happened  to  have 
gone  to  hell,  what  man  would  blame  the  poor  devil  for  get- 
ting as  drunk  as  he  could  and  staying  that  way  as  long  as 
his  satanic  host  would  furnish  the  high-balls  ? 

The  true  course  of  the  temperance  reformer  is  to  make 
this  world  so  little  like  hell  and  so  near  like  heaven  that  no 
man  will  dare  to  get  drunk  for  fear  of  missing  part  of  the 
show. 

And  it  must  always  be  remembered  that  a  heaven  on  this 
earth  implies  something  for  us  to  do,  some  task  to  perform 
that  we  feel  and  know  is  useful  to  ourselves  and  mankind 
in  general.  We  cannot  get  a  full  life  by  plowing  the  sands. 
Digging  post  holes  and  filling  them  up  again  may  exercise 
our  muscles,  but  it  is  deadly  to  the  soul.  Conjugating  Greek 
verbs  and  never  getting  any  further  in  the  language  may  be 
very  good  intellectual  discipline,  but  it  would  never  make  an 
intellectual  man.  To  enjoy  digging  the  post  holes  we  must 
know  that  they  are  to  be  filled  by  fence  posts  and  that  the  fence 
is  something  that  performs  a  useful  function.  We  can  only 
take  pleasure  in  the  study  of  Greek  verbs  when  we  know  it 
will  lead  us  to  wander  intelligently  in  Greek  literature. 

It  is  the  uselessness  of  the  sports  of  the  rich  that  poisons 
them.  Young  Vanderbilt  feels  this  when  he  runs  a  stage 
coach  for  hire.  To  drive  a  coach  and  four  every  day  up 
and  down  the  pike  without  "paying  passengers"  becomes 
monotonous,  but  let  him  know  that  every  man  has  paid  for 
his  seat,  and  immediately  there  is  added  a  sense  of  usefulness 
to  the  coach  driving  that  gives  it  the  zest  and  flavor  of  life. 

When  we  have  reorganized  society  it  is  quite  true  that  the 
demand  for  useful  labor  to  produce  the  necessities  of  life 
will  be  extremely  small.  At  the  outside  two  hours  per  day 
will  give  every  man  all  the  food,  shelter  and  clothing  he  will 
ever  wish. 

Men  will  not  wish  champagne  and  cigars,  because  they  will 
not  wish  to  deaden  their  senses  in  a  world  of  love  and  beauty. 
They  will  not  wish  to  have  individual  ownership  of  expensive 
things,  because  such  ownership  to-day  is  only  desired  for  the 
sake  of  ostentation,  a  motive  that  will  entirely  disappear 


66  Wilshike  Editorials. 

with  the  effaeement  of  a  system  which  enables  one  man  to 
take  the  wealth  produced  by  another. 

But  while  the  demands  for  necessities  will  be  immeasurable, 
architecture,  the  greatest  of  the  arts,  will  consume  men's 
labor  and  time  to  an  unparalleled  and  unimaginable  extent. 
The  buildings  of  the  World's  Fair  will  be  reproduced  on  a 
far  grander  scale  and  in  permanent  marble  in  every  State 
in  the  Union.  Built  not  only  for  the  joy  of  men  seeing  them 
after  completion,  but  built  for  the  actual  joy  and  pleasure  of 
building  them. 

We  know  how  the  cathedrals  of  the  middle  ages  were  built 
by  singing  workmen.  If  they  sung  and  loved  their  work  in 
those  days  how  much  more  will  labor  in  the  future  enjoy  its 
work  when  all  will  be  filled  with  that  cosmic  consciousness 
of  universal  joy  which  can  only  come  when  all  men  are 
brothers  and  join  in  the  great  work  of  making  life  beautiful  ? 

It  is  only  when  mankind  has  developed  into  a  complete 
and  world-wide  organism  that  man  as  an  individual  will 
really  and  at  last  live.  For  not  till  then  will  his  heart  throb 
in  unison  with  the  heart-beats  of  all  humanity. 


Two  World  Conquerors.  67 


TWO  WORLD  conquerors 

ALEXANDEK  sighed  when  he  had  no  more  worlds  to 
conquer. 
When  Morgan  conquers  the  world,  it  will  be  the 
world  that  will  do  the  sighing.    The  world  will  sigh  because 
it  will  be  unemployed. 

That  is  the  difference  between  the  two  world  conquerors; 
or,  rather  the  difference  between  their  two  methods  of  con- 
quest, and  it  is  a  mighty  big  difference,  too,  let  me  remark. 

If  Alexander  had  not  gorged  himself  at  that  famous  dinner 
and  died  of  indigestion  from  too  much  food,  he  might  easily 
have  served  out  his  allotted  time  of  life  reigning  over  this  old 
world.  The  dinner  was  an  accident.  There  were  no  necessi- 
ties of  the  case  demanding  that  Alexander  should  gorge  him- 
self to  death.  He  might  have  lived  as  abstemiously  as  John 
D.  Eockefeller  if  he  had  only  had  a  modern  liver  to  have 
compelled  abstemiousness.  But  men  did  not  have  modern 
livers  in  those  heroic  days,  and  so  Alexander  must  die  ig- 
nominiously.  We  have  learned  something  in  the  last  few 
thousand  years — thanks  to  Bernarr  Macfadden.  We  now  eat 
only  when  we  are  hungry,  that  is,  if  we  have  the  sense  and 
the  cents — for  we  must  have  both. 

Alexander  had  but  to  fulfil  one  condition  to  hold  his  throne. 
He  had  to  keep  his  health.  In  fact,  this  was  about  the  only 
condition  imposed  upon  a  king  in  feudal  days.  With  good 
health  and  reasonable  luck  and  intelligence,  most  kings  could 
be  pretty  sure  of  keeping  their  jobs. 

With  our  new  emperor  of  the  world,  Mr.  Morgan,  it  is  not 
a  question  of  his  health — it  is  a  question  of  his  wealth;  of 
his  ability  to  continue  making  money  out  of  his  job.  I  don't 
mean  that  Morgan  himself  would  abdicate  his  throne  if  he 
found  there  was  nothing  "in  it."  I  mean  that  Morgan  to-day 
holds  his  sceptre  by  reason  of  his  ability  to  give  men  and 
capital  employment;  or,  to  be  more  correct,  by  reason  of  the 
industrial  conditions  being  such  that  men  can  be  profitably 


68  Wilshiee  Editorials. 

employed.  Morgan  does  not  and  cannot  create  such  condi- 
tions. He  simply  takes  advantage  of  the  conditions  as  they 
may  happen  to  exist  in  the  industrial  world,  and  it  so  happens 
to-day  that  labor  and  capital  can  be  reasonably  well  employed, 
and  Morgan  reigns  in  peace.  He  came  to  his  throne  because 
of  a  great  over-production  of  the  industrial  machinery  of  the 
United  States.  This  condition  necessitated  the  formation  of 
vast  combinations  of  railways  and  industrial  enterprises. 
Morgan,  as  a  great  banker,  was  called  in  by  the  capitalists  to 
conduct  the  formation  of  these  combinations.  The  war  with 
Spain  coming  on,  followed  up  by  the  Boer  war,  caused  a  great 
demand  for  commodities,  which  was  followed  up  by  a  great 
increase  in  price.  The  new  Morgan  combinations  not  only 
profited  by  all  this,  but  owing  to  their  combination  they  could 
effect  vast  economies,  yet,  at  the  same  time,  keep  up  selling 
prices  by  means  of  their  monopoly.  Profits  never  amounted 
to  such  a  prodigious  sum  as  to-day  in  the  United  States. 
Morgan's  Steel  Trust  is  making  money  at  the  rate  of  nearly 
$140,000,000  per  year.  The  result  of  all  this  money  making 
is  naturally  being  followed  up  by  vast  expenditures  of  money 
to  still  further  perfect  the  machinery  of  production  in  order 
to  still  further  increase  profits.  One  railway  company  alone, 
the  Pennsylvania,  is  about  to  expend  $100,000,000  in  better- 
ments in  the  next  few  years. 

However,  this  cannot  continue  forever.  There  is  fast  ap- 
proaching the  day  when  the  greater  part  of  this  work  of  per- 
fecting the  machinery  of  production  will  be  finished.  The 
Pennsylvania  tunnel  under  the  Hudson  River  will  cost  $60,- 
000,000,  but  certainly  no  one  can  think  that  when  it  is 
finished  there  will  soon  be  need  of  another  tunnel  nor  of 
widening  the  one  just  built.  And  the  wildest  imagination 
can  hardly  dream  of  even  a  third  tunnel  being  built  in  the 
near  future.  It  is  the  same  way  with  the  immense  amount 
of  money  now  being  spent  upon  improving  our  railway  sys- 
tems. Heavier  bridges  and  heavier  rails  are  the  order  of  the 
day.  But  when  the  new  rails  are  laid  and  the  bridges 
strengthened  it  will  be  years  before  they  will  wear  out. 

That  the  business  men  of  this  country  do  not  look  for  the 
perpetual  continuation  of  good  times  is  seen  from  the  market 
price  of  the  preferred  stock  of  the  United  States  Steel  Com- 
pany.   Here  is  Schwab  making  an  affidavit  valuing  the  assets 


Two  World  Conquerors.  69 

at  over  thirteen  hundred  million  dollars  and  claiming  that 
the  earnings  for  the  year  will  be  over  one  hundred  and  forty 
million  dollars,  whereas  the  fixed  charges  are  only  something 
over  fifteen  million  dollars.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  the 
7  per  cent,  preferred  stock  of  the  company  sells  for  less  than 
90  cents  while  our  United  States  bonds  paying  2  per  cent, 
sell  for  108. 

The  only  possible  reason  why  a  7  per  cent,  investment  sells 
for  less  than  a  2  per  cent,  one  is  because  of  the  uncertainty 
of  the  7  per  cent,  being  permanent.  Yet,  according  to  Mr. 
Schwab,  the  only  way  the  Steel  Company  could  fail  to  pay  its 
7  per  cent,  would  be  owing  to  an  almost  inconceivable  demor- 
alization in  the  iron  industry  of  the  country.  And  the  low 
price  of  steel  stock  to  my  mind  indicates  exactly  such  a  feeling 
of  uncertainty  and  foreboding  now  existing  in  the  minds  of 
the  investing  public.  Even  the  "gift"  of  $4,000,000  per  year, 
as  evidenced  by  Mr.  Schwab's  increase  in  the  wages  paid  by 
the  Trust,  has  not  to  any  measurable  extent  reassured  the 
public  mind.  One  thing  it  does  show,  anyway,  and  that  is, 
that  Schwab  is  a  man  of  discernment.  He  saw  that  he  would 
sooner  or  later  be  forced  to  give  higher  wages,  owing  to  the 
increased  cost  of  living,  and  he  simply  took  time  by  the  fore- 
lock and  forestalled  the  men's  demands,  and  gets  credit  for 
great  philanthropy.  If  he  had  waited  for  a  strike  and  then 
given  in,  he  would  have  been  a  poor  captain. 

The  iron  industry  of  this  country  pays  the  railway  com- 
panies between  sixty  and  seventy  million  dollars  per  year  for 
transportation. 

Now,  then,  if  we  are  going  to  have  such  a  falling  off  of 
demand  for  iron  that  there  is  going  to  be  a  failure  to  pay 
the  7  per  cent,  upon  the  preferred  stock  of  the  Steel  Trust, 
it  certainly  means  that  a  great  part  of  the  millions  the  Steel 
Company  is  now  paying  the  railway  companies  is  going  to  be 
lost  to  them. 

The  collapse  of  the  steel  and  iron  industry  means  the  col- 
lapse of  the  railway  industry,  and  in  fact  the  collapse  of  the 
steel  industry  means  the  collapse  of  practically  all  the  indus- 
tries in  the  country.  I  am  predicting  this  by  my  words,  but 
our  capitalists  are  predicting  it  much  more  effectively  by 
deeds  when  they  refuse  to  buy  Steel  Trust  stock  at  par. 

This  is  the  pyramid  of  human  money  bags  upon  which 


70  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Mr.  Morgan  is  perched  and  from  which  he  views  the  world  as 
his  own — the  ability  of  the  Steel  Trust  to  pay  dividends. 

As  long  as  capitalists  want  steel  rail,  just  so  long  will  the 
Steel  Trust  employ  men  digging  iron  ore,  transporting  it  in 
vessels  and  trains  to  the  mills  and  transporting  the  finished 
article  on  the  railways  to  their  destination. 

But  the  question  of  capitalists  "wanting"  steel  is  not  a 
question  of  volition.  They  only  "want"  when  there  is  a 
demand,  and  this  demand  can  only  exist  when  there  are 
economic  conditions  which  create  such  a  demand.  It  is  be- 
yond the  power  of  the  capitalists  to  create  "conditions."  It  is 
true  they  may  by  foresight  and  combination  modify  condi- 
tions very  much,  but  the  general  current  of  industry  is  quite 
beyond  their  control  under  our  existing  competitive  system. 
It  is  true  that  if  Mr.  Morgan  was  the  Director  General  of  the 
whole  of  the  capital  of  the  world  he  could  manage  better  to 
keep  things  going  until  all  the  world  was  perfectly  equipped 
with  the  latest  industrial  machinery.  When  this  was  finally 
accomplished  he,  having  nothing  more  to  do  with  his  income, 
would  at  last  be  compelled  from  the  very  necessity  of  things 
to  introduce  the  co-operative  wage  system  to  get  rid  of  his 
money.  But  Morgan  is  not  in  complete  control  of  the  world's 
capital  although  he  seems  rapidly  approaching  it.  He  must 
consider  other  competing  capitalists.  He  must  both  husband 
and  waste  his  capital  as  the  exigencies  of  the  competitive 
strife  demand. 

He  is  not  a  free  agent  although  freer  than  any  capitalist 
yet  that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Take  his  position  in  the 
industrial  world  to-day,  particularly  in  connection  with  the 
great  iron  industry.  He  is  the  whole  thing  from  beginning 
to  end.  He  controls  the  iron  ore,  the  vessels  carrying  the  ore, 
the  furnaces  making  the  ore  into  pig  iron,  the  conversion  of 
the  iron  into  steel,  the  rolling  of  the  steel  into  beams  and  steel 
rail.  He  not  only  controls  the  railways  which  buy  the  steel 
rail,  but  he  controls  the  great  construction  companies  which 
use  the  steel  which  goes  into  the  manufacture  of  steel  build- 
ings and  steel  steamships.  In  fact,  Morgan  performs  every 
act  in  the  whole  scale  of  industry  from  the  very  beginning  up 
to  the  very  last  act  of  consumption.  But,  Morgan,  as  a  capi- 
talist, is  limited  in  his  powers  of  consumption  exactly  as 
Morgan,  as  an  individual,  is  limited  in  powers  of  eating. 


Two  World  Conquerors.  71 

He,  as  a  capitalist,  can  have  an  indigestion  of  too  much 
capital,  just  as  a  man  can  have  an  indigestion  of  too  much 
food.  His  body  is  an  organism,  more  or  less  perfect,  that 
will  only  consume  so  much  food.  The  body  politic  likewise, 
whether  Morganized  or  simply  organized,  can  consume  only 
so  much  capital.  The  best  Morgan  can  do  for  his  own  body 
is  to  keep  it  well  organized  and  exercised  and  not  to  feed  it 
either  too  much  or  too  little.  If  he  could  perform  the  same 
service  for  society  he  would  be  safe  in  holding  his  throne  as 
emperor  of  the  world — but  he  can't.  That  is,  he  can't  unless 
he  supplants  the  existing  competitive  wage  system  by  the 
co-operative  system,  and  this  change  can  never  be  made  for 
society.  It  must  make  it  of  its  own  accord  and  motion  and 
for  itself.  A  man  may  cultivate  the  soil  and  plant  a  rose 
bush,  but  he  cannot  make  it  blossom.  The  bush  must  do  that 
for  itself.  All  he  can  do  is  to  hasten  or  retard  the  event. 
Now,  society  is  simply  a  human  rose  bush,  with  somewhat 
more  sense  than  the  common,  or  garden  variety.  Morgan  is 
only  a  part  of  society  and  can  only  contribute  his  part  of  the 
social  consciousness  which  will  cause  us  to  know  we  are  to 
blossom  into  Socialism  some  day,  and  which  social  conscious- 
ness will  enable  us  to  prepare  for  that  momentous  event,  and 
enable  us  to  somewhat  hasten  the  glad  day. 

Our  physical  body  is  simply  an  organization  of  living  cells. 
Each  cell  looks  out  for  itself,  but  it  can  only  do  so  by  helping 
to  keep  the  whole  body  in  a  condition  of  health  so  that  it  can 
derive  its  proper  sustenance  from  it  in  turn  for  the  sustenance 
it  gives  the  body.  If  anything  goes  wrong  with  a  cell,  for 
instance,  if  the  cells  in  the  legs  become  tired  with  too  much 
walking,  they  first  give  a  civil  warning  that  they  must  have  a 
rest,  and  finally  if  they  don't  get  what  they  want,  they  go  on 
a  strike  and  won't  work  at  all.  Then  the  body  must  come 
to  their  relief — it  has  no  choice.  Just  as  the  coal  miners  in 
society  to-day  first  make  a  demand  and  then  finally  go  on  a 
strike  to  get  what  they  want.  If  they  had  the  sense  of  the 
cells  in  the  body  they  would  get  what  they  wanted  or  society 
would  go  cold. 

The  latest  theory  of  cancer  is  that  it  is  simply  an  ordinary 
cell  that  has  gone  crazy  and  determined  to  set  up  a  little 
imperium  in  impetrio  of  its  own.  It  wants  to  be  the  whole 
thing  itself.    It  levies  on  all  the  tissues  of  the  body  just  as 


72  Wilshire  Editorials. 

if  it  had  the  right  to  claim  a  separate  organization  as  well 
as  the  body.  The  body  cannot  stand  this  rebellion.  It  finally 
weakens  under  the  stress  of  civil  war,  and  unless  it  exorcises 
the  cancer  it  dies  and  with  it  dies  the  cancer. 

The  Trust  is  simply  a  cancer  on  the  body  politic.  It  is  an 
organization  gone  wild  which  thinks  that  the  sustenance  in- 
tended for  the  whole  of  society  should  be  diverted  to  it. 

At  one  time  it  was  the  feudal  kings  who  took  to  themselves 
the  wealth  intended  for  all,  but  to-day  it  is  the  money  king 
who  usurps  the  rights  of  society,  and  right  royally  he  does  it, 
too! 

As  Mr.  Wayland  says  in  the  "Appeal  to  Keason" : 

"In  view  of  the  hesitation  in  the  world  of  stocks,  bonds 
and  gambling  occasioned  by  the  illness  of  the  English  king,  a 
financial  report  says  that  while  the  king  was  more  ornamental 
than  vital,  'he  was  a  discreet  and  mute  partner  in  many  im- 
portant enterprises.'  In  the  olden  times  the  king  raised  an 
army  of  free-booters  and  overrun  and  pillaged  his  neighbors 
where  he  could,  and  on  the  booty  thus  obtained  lived  in 
luxury.  That  was  at  least  open  and  in  a  sense  honorable.  He 
made  no  pretenses  to  be  otherwise.  To-day  he  takes  the  ways 
of  business  to  accomplish  the  same  ends.  He  invests  in  'en- 
terprises' that  have  for  their  object  the  taking  away  from  the 
people  the  results  of  their  labor,  and  appropriates  them  to 
his  own  use.  He  and  his  fellows  secretly  conspire  against 
the  rest  of  the  human  race  to  cheat  them  in  the  matter  of 
price  and  cost,  and  extract  millions  from  them  to  squander 
on  idle  ostentatious  living.  The  king  is  a  mere  child  in  this 
to  such  as  Morgan :  combinations  of  men  steal  from  the  people 
a  tiny  speck  on  every  mouthful  of  sugar,  every  drop  of  oil, 
every  glimmer  of  electricity  or  gas,  every  mouthful  of  food, 
every  rag  of  clothes.  In  this  age  we  have  not  one  king  but 
many,  and  many  whose  names  even  we  never  hear,  or  of  whose 
existence  we  are  unaware.  Stores  to-day  have  become  so 
many  tax-collecting  offices  for  the  men  who  own  the  Trusts ; 
the  erstwhile  merchant  is  to-day  but  the  collector  in  the  cun- 
ning system  of  taxation  without  representation.  We  read  and 
wonder  at  the  stupidity  and  patience  of  the  past  generation 
in  their  submission  to  the  tribute  of  kings,  but  they  were 
never  bled  to  one-tenth  the  extent  the  people  are  to-day  by 
commercial  kings,  whose  incomes  from  the  people  are  greater 


Two  World  Conquerors.  73 

than  any  England's  kings  ever  dreamed.  We  could  better 
support  five-fold  the  royalty  and  snobbery  of  England  in  their 
present  useless  lives  than  support  the  tens  of  thousands  of 
tax-collecting  vermin  that  swarm  the  industrial  body  of  the 
people.  What  we  pay  for  national  and  local  taxes  is  nothing 
compared  to  the  sums  we  have  laid  on  us  each  year  by  the 
lice  of  capitalism.  Go  to  any  city  and  see  the  long  line  of 
mansions,  palaces  and  exclusive  pleasure  places — inhabited 
by  human  beings  who  never  do  a  useful  stroke  of  labor,  whose 
lives  are  spent  in  cunningly  extracting  from  the  workers  the 
honey  of  wealth  they  produce,  and  you  can  readily  see  how 
insignificant  the  public  taxes  are  compared  to  what  it  takes  to 
keep  up  these  drones.  The  income  of  a  Rockefeller  or  a  Mor- 
gan is  greater  than  the  royal  income  of  all  the  royal  families 
of  all  Europe." 

No,  it  is  true  that  no  feudal  king  ever  had  the  twentieth 
part  of  Rockefeller's  income,  and  it  is  just  owing  to  this 
enormous  drain  upon  the  people  that  capitalism  will  never 
have  the  long  life  enjoyed  by  feudalism. 

It's  on  the  same  principle  that  a  man  can  endure  a  wart 
on  his  body  much  longer  than  he  can  a  cancer.  The  kings 
and  dukes  were  mere  little  warts  on  society.  The  Rockefellers 
and  Morgans  are  virulent  cancers.  The  wart  remains  in 
nearly  a  static  condition.  It  grows  very  slowly  and  it  takes 
but  little  nourishment  from  the  system  to  feed  it;  it  causes 
little  pain  or  discomfort.  Not  so  with  the  cancer.  It  grows 
every  day  and  the  older  it  gets  the  more  it  drains  the  system 
and  the  more  pain  it  causes. 

Now,  when  a  man  has  a  cancer,  he  doesn't  expect  to  get  rid 
of  it  by  reasoning  with  the  cancer  and  persuading  it  to  leave 
his  body.  Not  at  all.  He  summons  up  his  resolution  and  cuts 
it  out.  He  never  thinks  of  having  any  resentment  against 
that  cell  which  has  gone  wild  and  made  a  cancer  out  of  itself, 
and  threatens  his  life.  If  he  is  a  scientist  he  knows  that  that 
cell  is  totally  irresponsible.  It  is  simply  diseased,  and  if 
properly  treated  and  put  in  a  proper  environment  it  will  once 
again  resume  its  rightful  status  in  the  body. 

The  Trust  cancer  upon  the  American  people  is  not  yet  in 
the  open  virulent  stage.  It  gives  some  annoyance;  we  all 
know  that  an  abnormal  growth  is  upon  us;  but  we  will  not 
take  measures  for  its  removal,  however,  until  the  disease  as- 


74  Wilshire  Editorials. 

sumes  the  acute  form  and  it  becomes  a  matter  of  life  and 
death  with  "us  to  remove  the  false  growth  and  correct  the 
tendencies  that  brought  it  on. 

Now  we  simply  let  Teddy  tell  us  that  he  will  have  Dr. 
Knox  cure  us,  and  let  it  go  at  that. 


How  High  Can  Wages  Go?  75 


HOW  HIGH  CAN  WAGES  GO? 

AGKEAT  many  employers  conscientiously  believe  that 
wages  cannot  be  raised  if  the  increase  will  make 
the   cost   of  production  greater  than  the   present 
receipts  of  the  business  will  allow  to  be  paid. 

They  seem  to  be  quite  oblivious  to  the  possibility  of  raising 
prices  sufficiently  to  enable  them  to  pay  the  higher  wages. 
In  the  last  coal  strike  the  operators  said  that  if  they  paid 
the  wages  demanded  by  the  miners  they  could  not  get  enough 
for  the  coal  to  enable  them  to  pay  cost  of  production. 

However,  as  soon  as  production  was  curtailed  the  price  of 
coal  went  up  from  $6  to  $20  per  ton.  Here,  then,  was  a 
difference  of  $14  per  ton,  while  the  advance  in  cost  of  mining 
coal,  which  would  have  been  the  result  of  paying  the  increase 
of  wages  demanded  by  the  miners,  would  not  have  amounted 
to  twenty  cents  per  ton. 

The  people  simply  must  have  coal,  and  if  the  cost  of  oper- 
ating the  mines  forces  up  the  cost,  then  the  people,  rather 
than  go  without,  will  pay  whatever  is  necessary  to  get  it 
even  if  it  be  $20  per  ton.  Of  course,  when  such  a  tremendous 
rise  takes  place  there  is  naturally  a  great  diminution  of 
demand,  but  nevertheless  this  does  not  alter  the  fact  that 
for  the  coal  that  is  sold  the  operators  will  be  able  to  pay  the 
miners  tremendous  wages.  I  take  the  following  from  the 
Toronto  "World": 

EMPLOYER  AND  EMPLOYEE. 

But  no  power  on  earth  can  make  an  industry  or  a  business  carry 
a  heavier  wage  burden  than  its  strength  will  uphold.  Overloaded, 
it  must  get  rid  of  part  of  the  burden  or  it  must  sink.  And  the 
alternative  which  the  wage  earner  must  choose  is  to  lighten  the 
'burden  when  it  is  too  heavy  and  not  to  increase  it  when  it  is  as 
heavy  as  can  be  tolerated,  or  he  will  do  the  worst  thing  he  can  do  for 
himself.  He  will  narrow  his  own  field  of  employment.  He  will  dimin- 
ish its  fruits  which  may  be  divided  with  him.  He  will  kill  the  goose 
that  lays  the  golden  egg. — New  York  Press. 

This  editorial  opinion  is  called  forth  by  the  current  trend 
of  the  labor  situation  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 
According  to  the  London,  Eng.,  Chamber  of  Commerce  re- 
turns, there  occurred  in  1901,  for  the  first  time  since  1895, 


76  Wilshire  Editorials. 

a  heavy  fall  in  the  total  wages  of  British  workmen.  In  1901, 
the  "Chamber  of  Commerce  Journal"  computes,  there  was  a 
decrease  in  wages  of  £1,584,000  (about  $7,900,000),  as  against 
an  increase  in  1900  of  about  £6,000,000.  Thus  far  in  1902 
the  downward  tendency  has  continued,  so  that  the  end  of 
the  year  will  doubtless  show  a  further  recession  of  the  total 
wages  from  the  highest  figures  of  1901. 

It  is  found,  on  looking  further  into  the  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce report,  that  though  this  reduction  occurred  in  the 
total  wages  paid  out,  in  some  groups  of  industries  the  work- 
men actually  secured  increased  wages.  In  other  words,  while 
wages  in  particular  groups  have  advanced,  the  general  decline 
in  wages  forced  the  total  results  far  down,  as  the  statistics 
quoted  above  show. 

Taking  these  figures  as  a  text,  "The  Press"  warns  trades 
unions  against  the  indiscriminate  forcing  up  of  wages  in  in- 
dustries, some  of  which  may  not  be  able  to  stand  the  advance 
in  expenditure  entailed.    "The  Press"  then  proceeds : 

Because  there  has  been  a  great  boom  in  one  industry,  with  largely 
increased  wages,  not  only  made  possible  but  voluntarily  raised  in 
response  to  the  universal  law  of  supply  and  demand,  we  have  seen 
undiscriminating  wage-earners  taking  it  for  granted  that  there 
should  be  a  corresponding  increase  in  wages  in  industries  and  occu- 
pations which  have  been  in  fact,  for  one  reason  or  another,  languish- 
ing. They  have  attempted  to  enforce  their  demands  when  the  tem- 
porary enforcement  of  them  must  inevitably  cripple  their  employers, 
(if  not  drive  some  of  them  to  the  wall.  A  case  in  point  whose 
details  we  have  given  some  study  is  that  of  the  carting  and  truck- 
ing business.  For  the  last  two  years  this  business  has  been  stag- 
gering under  burdens  of  exceptional  disadvantage.  The  increased 
cost  of  horses  put  a  heavy  tax  on  it.  The  increased  cost  of  all 
the  materials  used  for  building  and  repairing  the  equipment  of 
the  business — the  wood,  the  iron  and  steel  of  the  wagons  and  the 
material  of  the  harness — added  to  the  burden.  Then  the  cost  of 
feed,  owing  to  the  crop  failures,  practically  doubled,  so  that  the 
trucking  and  general  delivery  business  was  in  the  worst  shape 
to  make  money  at  any  time  in  years.  And  at  that  very  time  of 
distress — at  the  extreme  depression  of  the  business — the  drivers, 
handlers  and  other  workmen  employed  in  the  group  decided  that 
because  others  had  been  getting  advances  in  wages — they  should  get 
them.  The  demands  were  presented  by  the  union  and  the  choice  was 
given  to  the  employers  of  granting  them  or  of  suffering  a  strike. 
In  one  case  which  we  examined  the  new  scale  presented  to  an 
employer  called  for  an  additional  wage  payment  of  $60,000  a  year. 
The  business  was  not  making  one-fourth  of  that  sum.  But  the 
scale  was  generally  enforced,  with  the  result  that   some  of  the 


How  High  Can  Wages  Go?  77 

employers  were  compelled  to  cut  down  the  number  of  their  wagons, 
to  injure  the  efficiency  of  their  service,  and  to  reduce  the  scope 
of  their  business,  while  others  were  put  out  of  business  entirely. 

In  these  days  of  searching  for  a  means  of  bringing  capital 
and  labor  into  proper  relations  with  each  other,  any  illumi- 
nating comment  on  the  problem  is  of  interest,  and  we  there- 
fore quote  our  contemporary  on  this  question. 

The  average  production  per  laborer  according  to  Census 
Bulletin  150,  U.  S.  Reports,  is  $2,451  per  year.  The  wages 
paid  average  $437  per  year. 

Certainly  if  the  laborers  weTe  completely  organized,  then 
they  could  get  the  whole  of  the  $2,451  that  they  produce, 
less  such  sum  that  the  capitalist  needs  to  keep  up  his  plant 
and  pay  him  wages  of  superintendence. 

The  Steel  Trust  to-day  pays  profits  of  over  100  millions 
per  year.  If  times  were  dull  they  would  run  the  works  at 
a  loss  rather  than  shut  down. 

If  labor  could  hold  its  own  in  a  strike  it  could  put  up 
wages  to  the  extent  of  absorbing  the  whole  of  the  present 
100  millions  profit,  for  it  would  pay  Mr.  Morgan  better  to 
lose  all  his  profits  rather  than  shut  down  the  works. 

In  the  case  of  the  trucking  industry  in  New  York  which 
"The  Press"  refers  to,  it  can  be  seen  upon  a  moment's  re- 
flection that  the  carriage  of  freight  from  the  depot  to  the 
store  is  an  absolute  necessity  to  the  merchant.  There  is  no 
substitute  that  can  be  offered  for  transportation  by  the 
trucks.  He  simply  must  pay  what  the  teamsters  demand  or 
go  out  of  business. 

He  may  have  been  basing  his  business  upon  a  certain  cost 
of  truckage,  but  if  so  he  must  re-base  it  upon  another  cost 
and  add  the  difference  to  the  selling  price  of  his  goods.  He 
need  not  fear  competitors,  for  the  same  extra  cost  will  like- 
wise force  them  to  adopt  the  same  means  of  preservation. 
If  the  extra  cost  of  trucking  would  ruin  business  in  New 
York,  then  the  excessive  rents  paid  there  to  the  land-owners 
would  have  certainly  ruined  business  long  ago.  But  we  all 
know  that  business  increases  every  year  in  New  York,  and 
every  year  up  go  rents.  The  merchants  simply  recoup  them- 
selves by  charging  higher  prices.  And  if  people  cannot  afford 
to  pay  the  prices,  then  they  will  move  away  and  down  will 
come  rents. 


78  Wilshiee  Editorials. 


COLUMBIA'S  RACE  FOR  LIBERTY. 

TO  many  the  verse,  "Sweet  Land  of  Liberty,"  when  applied 
to  America,  seems  to  be  the  baldest  irony,  but  there  was 
a  day  when  it  was  not  a  joke.  One  of  the  very  signifi- 
cant features  of  the  times  is  the  attitude  that  Life,  a  paper 
having  its  circulation  almost  exclusively  among  the  "400," 
is  taking  toward  our  modern  plutocracy.  One  would  think 
that  it  would  be  the  last  paper  that  would  publish  such  a 
cartoon  as  that  seen  on  another  page.  Just  now,  no  doubt, 
poor,  foolish  Columbia  is  valuing  the  miserable  apples  of 
Greed  and  Avarice  that  her  competitor,  the  Trust,  casts  in 
her  path  more  than  she  does  the  winning  of  the  race  for 
Liberty.  But  the  race  is  not  by  any  means  as  nearly  over 
as  the  plutocrats  in  the  royal  box  would  seem  to  imagine. 
The  Trust  has  one  more  apple  to  throw,  Fraud,  and  he  will 
needs  throw  it  soon,  too,  and  then  his  last  card  will  have 
been  played.  Columbia  can  win  as  easily  as  could  the  god- 
dess of  old,  and  that  she  will  win  in  the  long  race  of  a 
nation's  life  is  certain,  notwithstanding  the  tricks  of  her 
competitor.  The  marvel,  however,  is  that  she  allows  herself 
to  be  tricked  even  for  the  moment.  "Why  is  it  that  a  people 
as  intelligent  as  we  Americans  certainly  are,  allow  ourselves  to 
be  kept  out  of  our  inheritance  by  such  self-evident  trickery  as 
the  Trust  is  now  imposing  upon  us  ?  Here  we  have  a  country 
that  is  palpably  more  than  capable  of  supporting  all  of  us 
in  affluence.  The  Trust,  by  the  great  economies  it  has  been 
able  to  effect  in  production,  has  confessedly  made  the  task 
of  producing  the  things  we  want  infinitely  much  easier  than 
ever.  But  notwithstanding  that  the  Trust  admits  on  the 
one  hand  that  it  has  enabled  man  to  control  nature  that 
much  the  easier,  it,  on  the  other  hand,  is  denying  men  em- 
ployment, alleging  that  they  are  no  longer  needed,  owing 
to  these  self-same  economies,  and  this  denial  of  employment 
means  the  impossibility  of  men  procuring  the  food  they 
need  simply  because  it  has  become  so  much  easier  to  pro- 
duce that  food.     Is  it  not  absolutely  incomprehensible  to, 


Columbia's  Bace  for  Liberty.  79 

think  that  we  Americans  can  accept  such  a  condition  of 
affairs  and  not  see  the  utter  absurdity  of  it  all  ?  Here  we  are 
in  America,  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  we  have 
given  over  to  the  Trusts  the  management  of  procuring  this 
milk  and  honey  in  the  manner  which  will  require  the  least 
human  exertion.  We  have  labored  for  years  and  years  con- 
structing machinery  to  lessen  the  task  of  milk  and  honey 
getting.  We  have  been  so  busy  making  these  machines  that 
we  have  almost  forgotten  why  we  started  out  to  make  them, 
namely,  in  order  to  lighten  our  toil.  In  fact,  we  have 
almost  begun  to  think  that  the  making  of  the  machines  was 
an  end  in  itself  instead  of  being  the  means  to  an  end.  So 
immersed  have  we  been  in  the  process  of  making  machines 
that  when  the  Trusts  came  along  and  told  us  that  more 
machines  are  now  built  than  there  is  any  need  for,  and  that, 
therefore,  our  labor  Will  be  no  longer  needed,  instead  of  our 
throwing  up  our  caps  with  a  "Huzza!  Boys,  the  Work  of 
Man  is  Done!  Now  let  us  Use  these  Machines  over  the 
Making  of  which  We  have  Spent  so  Many  Weary  Years  of 
Toil !" — I  say,  instead  of  making  any  such  an  outcry  of  joy 
at  the  completion  of  the  task,  we  are  terrified  to  death,  for 
we  think  unless  we  can  continue  the  making  of  machines, 
no  matter  how  little  they  may  be  needed,  that  there  is  no 
other  way  of  our  being  able  to  use  our  labor  in  getting  a 
living.  We  laugh  at  the  Irishman  who  thought  the  only 
way  to  get  his  pig  roasted  was  to  burn  down  his  shanty, 
yet  we  Americans  are  just  as  silly.  We  think  the  only  way 
for  us  to  get  bread  is  to  continue  building  superfluous  ma- 
chines. Simply  because  in  the  beginning  of  our  industrial 
development  all  our  labor  force  could  be  profitably  spent  in 
the  making  of  tools  for  the  production  of  bread,  now  that 
we  have  practically  completed  such  tools  we  are  terrified  that 
we  cannot  continue  getting  our  bread  as  we  formerly  did 
because  the  work  of  making  such  tools  is  completed.  When 
we  were  building  such  machines,  we  simply  made  a  trade 
of  our  labor.  Part  of  us  worked  in  the  fields  growing  the 
wheat  and  another  part  of  us  were  working  in  the  machine 
shops  making  mowing  machines.  Then  we  exchanged  our 
mowing  machines  for  the  wheat  and  fed  ourselves.  The 
end  was  to  feed  ourselves,  and  we  thought  to  attain  that 
end  more  easily  by  building  mowing  machines.     We   fed 


80  Wilshire  Editorials. 

ourselves  all  right  enough  before  we  ever  had  any  mowing 
machines,  but  we  were  not  satisfied  to  leave  well  enough 
alone.  We  must  do  better,  and  we  certainly  can  do  much 
better,  for  one  man  with  modern  machinery  in  the  wheat 
field  can  do  the  work  of  one  hundred.  And  now  when  we 
have  quite  finished  building  all  the  machines  we  need,  we 
find  that  instead  of  getting  one  hundred  times  as  much 
wheat  as  we  did  before  we  made  the  machines  we  actually 
are  told  by  some  of  our  statesmen  that  we  may  not  even 
get  as  much  as  we  did  before  we  had  any  machines  at  all. 
The  only  hope  for  us,  according  to  some  people,  is  that  we 
develop  our  foreign  trade  so  that  when  we  make  more  mow- 
ing machines  than  can  be  used  in  this  country,  the  foreigner 
will  take  pity  on  us  and  use  them  in  his  country.  This  is  called 
by  the  Eoosevelt-Hanna  combination  salvation  by  reciprocity. 
It  means  that  the  mere  finishing  up  of  sufficient  mowing 
machines  to  cut  all  our  American  wheat  must  now  be  fol- 
lowed up  by  us  Americans  building  mowing  machines  for  all 
the  rest  of  the  Earth.  When  we  finally  finish  this  mighty 
task  we  are  not  told  that  we  will  then  get  that  hundred  for 
one  return  that  we  have  been  waiting  for,  lo!  now,  these 
fifty  years.  No,  we  are  told  that  after  we  have  built  ma- 
chines for  all  the  world,  then  we  will  have  indeed  finished 
our  task  and  it  will  then  be  time  for  us  to  move  off  the 
Earth.  Just  the  time  when  we  thought  we  were  getting  in 
shape  to  rest  and  enjoy  life  we  are  told  it  is  time  to  die. 
However,  we  are  not  going  to  move  off  the  Earth,  and  neither 
are  we  going  to  shuffle  off  this  mortal  coil.  We  are  going  to 
suddenly  awaken  to  the  fact  that  we  have  been  fools  long 
enough,  and  we  are  going  to  simply  let  the  machines  do  our 
work;  and  we  are  going  to  eat  the  bread  without  any  pangs 
of  conscience  that  it  is  produced  by  the  harnessing  of 
Niagara  rather  than  by  the  sweat  of  our  noble  brows.  If 
anybody  wishes  to  sweat,  let  him  take  a  vapor  bath,  but  as 
for  us  we  see  no  terrors  in  a  dry-browed  future.  Anyhow, 
we  are  going  to  have  one  try  at  it,  even  if  we  lose. 

All  this  is  not  saying  that  labor,  like  virtue,  is  not  its 
own  reward,  but  there  is  such  a  thing  as  having  too  much  of 
a  good  thing.  We  are  too  apt  to  look  upon  the  only  possible 
reward  for  work  to  exist  in  its  product,  but  as  a  matter  of 
fact  there  is  an  equal  reward  in  the  very  work  that  led  to 


Columbia's  Race  for  Liberty.  81 

the  product,  although  our  modern  methods  of  employment 
quite  obscure  it. 

For  a  healthy  man  there  is  a  joy  in  digging  post-holes, 
provided  there  are  not  too  many  to  be  dug  in  a  day.  There 
is  certainly  more  joy  in  the  digging  of  a  number  of  post- 
holes  than  there  can  be  in  any  possession  of  the  holes  after 
they  are  dug.  What  painter  ever  enjoyed  the  possession  of 
his  picture  as  much  as  he  did  the  painting  of  it  ?  I  am  sure 
if  Pierpont  Morgan  were  to  analyze  his  feelings,  he  would 
admit  that  his  pleasure  in  forming  the  United  States  Steel 
Company  was  far  greater  than  any  he  now  has  in  possessing 
the  cash  and  bonds  he  received  for  doing  the  work.  Even 
the  mere  reminiscence  of  the  performing  of  a  good  work  is 
a  far  greater  pleasure  than  the  possession  of  any  reward. 

This  reward  existing  in  the  actual  doing  of  the  work 
runs  all  through  nature.  We  see  it  in  the  intense  delight  of 
children  to  do  something  of  use  for  their  elders.  What  little 
girl  in  fortunate  circumstances  does  not  like  to  make  an 
effort  at  cooking  or  sewing  for  her  mother?  But  when  we 
see  a  little  girl  sewing  her  soul  into  her  work  in  a  sweater's 
den  we  can  hardly  realize  that  under  different  conditions 
that  same  work  which  now  wears  the  child's  life  away  might 
be  a  joy  to  her.  It  is  not  work,  but  over-work,  that  is 
painful. 

The  determination  of  when  work  becomes  over-work  is 
also  of  a  varying  nature.  A  man  will  perform  prodigies  of 
labor  during  a  hunting  trip  that  will  but  add  to  his  health, 
whereas  the  same  amount  of  work  done  digging  our  post- 
holes  would  be  heart-breaking  drudgery.  Similarly  Edison 
working  night  and  day  perfecting  an  invention  can  do  such 
strenuous  work  with  no  ill  results  to  his  health,  whereas 
if  he  were  without  the  stimulus  of  the  pleasure  in  the  work 
he  would  break  down  at  it.  It  is  often  said  that  when  a 
successful  business  man  does  far  more  work  than  his  mean- 
est employee,  therefore  his  material  reward  should  be  justly 
reckoned  accordingly.  This  reasoning  entirely  overlooks  the 
reward  that  exists  in  his  work  in  itself.  That  there  is  more 
joy  in  giving  than  receiving  is  a  truism,  but  that  the  giving 
consists  in  the  doing  of  the  work  which  produces  the  gift 
is  often  overlooked.  However,  if  we  analyze  some  of  our 
social  customs  we  find  that  this  idea  of  the  pleasure  of  making 


82  Wilshire  Editorials. 

a  gift  of  the  products  of  our  labor,  when  that  labor  is  con- 
fessedly from  its  nature  of  a  pleasurable  kind,  is  tacitly  con- 
fessed, for  such  a  gift  is  conventionally  possible  among  equals 
and  friends,  where  any  other  would  be  impossible. 

For  instance,  if  I  go  shooting  and  send  a  brace  of  wild 
ducks  to  my  friend,  they  will  be  gladly  accepted,  notwith- 
standing he  may  have  a  suspicion  that  I  have  bought  them  in 
the  market.  However,  there  is  a  chance  that  I  really  have 
shot  them  myself  and  anyway  I  have  had  the  fun  of  the 
trying,  and  hence  he  feels  that  in  accepting  them  he  is  under 
no  obligation.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  I  should  send  him  a 
pair  of  tame  ducks  with  no  intimation  that  I  had  acquired 
them  in  any  other  way  than  by  purchase,  the  present  would 
be  regarded  in  the  light  of  an  insult.  I  can  only  give  him 
tame  ducks  if  it  is  known  that  I  am  playing  at  the  gentle- 
man farmer  and  am  raising  ducks  purely  for  amusement. 
These  customs  regarding  the  kind  of  labor  incorporated  into 
a  thing  deciding  upon  the  possibility  of  its  being  a  gift,  I 
say,  have  at  base  a  clear  recognition  of  the  delights  of  labor 
when  clone  under  proper  conditions. 

It  seems  absurd  to  many  to  say  that  labor  in  the  future 
with  Socialism  will  give  quite  as  much  pleasure,  if 
not  indeed  more  pleasure,  in  the  doing  of  it  than  in  the 
participation  of  its  results.  Where  does  the  pleasure 
come  in  to-day  when  we  go  off  to  the  woods  for  a 
week's  picnic?  It  is  certainly  not  in  the  eating  of  the 
fish  or  game  that  may  be  killed.  In  fact,  people  often  go 
out  camping  and  take  all  their  provisions  with  them.  Of 
course,  the  change  from  conventional  city  life  is  a  pleasure, 
but  I  venture  to  say  that  a  great  amount  of  the  pleasure 
consits  in  the  doing  of  the  necessary  camp  work.  I  think 
it  will  be  admitted  by  those  who  have  tried  both  ways  that 
when  servants  are  taken  along  to  do  the  work,  half  the 
pleasure  of  a  camping  trip  is  lost. 

It  is  quite  true  that  all  high  civilizations  in  the  past  have 
been  based  upon  the  servitude  of  man  to  man.  A  select  few 
have  been  permitted  to  live  a  higher  life  perched  on  the 
backs  of  the  many.  And  far  be  it  from  me  to  say  that  there  is 
not  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  having  a  small  class  enjoy 
the  delights  of  culture  rather  than  have  the  whole  mass 
brutalized. 


Columbia's  Bace  for  Liberty.  83 

Man  must  have  servants  to  take  the  labor  of  getting  a 
living  off  his  shoulders  sufficiently  for  him  to  develop  his 
intellect.  However,  there  is  no  reason  why  man's  servant 
should  not  be  a  machine  just  as  well  as  it  should  be  a  fellow 
man.  It  is  not  the  nature  of  the  servant  that  gives  the  nec- 
essary leisure.  It  is  the  nature  of  the  service.  I  must  have 
food  and  clothing.  It  can  be  given  to  me  by  a  slave  operated 
by  muscle  or  by  a  slave  operated  by  steam. 

Even  on  the  camping  trip  it  must  be  remembered  that 
although  we  may  take  no  servants  with  us,  nevertheless  we 
take  congealed  labor  along  with  us  in  our  flour  and  bacon, 
our  blankets,  our  guns,  and  in  fact  the  whole  of  our  camp 
accoutrements.  The  goods  we  take  with  us  represent  just 
so  much  less  labor  for  us  to  perform  while  on  the  trip. 

I  am  dwelling  upon  this  idea  of  the  pleasure  of  work 
because  I  feel  that  many  of  those  who  have  wealth  to-day 
look  with  unnecessary  horror  upon  a  change  of  society  which 
will  necessitate  conditions  in  which  all  must  work.  They 
not  unnaturally  think  that  by  "work"  is  meant  the  kind  of 
work  both  as  to  time  and  nature  such  as  they  see  laborers, 
clerks,  servants,  etc.,  doing  about  them. 

I  don't  blame  a  man  raised  in  the  lap  of  luxury  looking 
with  consternation  upon  a  future  which  implied  that  he 
would  have  to  do  work  of  this  kind.  It  is  but  natural  that 
he  should  make  up  his  mind  to  fight  to  the  death  to  resist 
any  such  change.  I  know  that  in  the  days  before  I  was  a 
Socialist  and  had  simply  a  vague  idea  that  Socialism  meant 
drudgery  for  everyone  and  that  it  was  to  come,  if  ever  it 
did  come,  through  the  deliberate  organizing  of  the  working 
class  to  take  possession  of  the  wealth  of  the  rich.  I  say 
that  when  I  thought  this  I,  too,  had  made  up  my  mind  to 
fight  to  the  last  ditch  rather  than  let  it  occur.  I  felt  that 
I  might  as  well  be  dead  as  live  the  life  I  saw  the  poor  of 
to-day  living,  and  that  I  could  risk  nothing  by  fighting,  and 
I  might  gain.  In  those  days  I  never  had  heard  of  social 
evolution  as  something  that  was  of  present-day  importance. 
It  had  never  been  suggested  to  me  that  Socialism  was  com- 
ing like  the  winter's  snow,  and  that  I  might  as  well  try  to 
fight  off  that  snow  with  Krupp  guns  as  to  resist  it.  That 
Socialism  was  such  an  inevitability  and  that  it  did  not  mean 
drudgery  for  men,  but  universal  joy,  suddenly  broke  upon 


84  Wilshire  Editorials. 

me  one  day.  It  was  no  supernatural  light  either,  that  led 
to  my  conversion.  It  was  simply  deductions  obtained  from 
the  appearance  of  the  trusts,  and  my  knowledge  of  the 
business  conditions  that  led  to  this  appearance. 

I  made  a  flop  in  one  night,  about  fifteen  years  ago,  from 
being  the  most  extreme  follower  of  the  laissez  faire  school 
of  economists  to  the  most  extreme  of  the  collectivist  school. 
There  was  no  step-by-step  process  in  my  evolution,  and  I 
have  never  budged  an  inch  in  my  economics  since  I  made 
my  change  of  belief.  Immediately  I  became  a  convert  to 
Socialism  I  thought  that  every  man  I  talked  to  would  see 
things  as  I  did  and  follow  suit. 

The  economic  necessity  of  Socialism  seemed  so  easily 
proven  that  I  was  really  green  enough  to  think  that  Mr. 
Rockefeller  himself  would  see  the  point  when  it  was  shown 
to  him,  and  might  even  join  in  the  movement  to  introduce 
Socialism.  Upon  this  theory  I  actually  wrote  him  a  very 
polite  letter  showing  how  he  had  a  chance  to  go  down  into 
history  as  the  introducer  of  Socialism  if  he  would  but  turn 
his  vast  wealth  to  that  end.  I  am  still  waiting  hopefully 
for  that  reply.  It  will  soon  be  fifteen  years,  but  still  my 
patience  is  not  exhausted.  In  the  meanwhile,  however,  Mr. 
Pierpont  Morgan  has  appeared  on  the  financial  horizon  so 
that  there  is  a  double  string  to  my  bow.  It  may  appear  to 
some  that  it  is  the  height  of  absurdity  for  me  to  suggest  in 
any  way  except  as  a  joke  that  Eockefeller  or  Morgan  should 
ever  accept  the  Socialist  theory  and  would  assist  in  its  con- 
summation. I  admit  that  my  experience  in  gaining  converts 
from  the  rich  does  not  justify  me  in  still  having  hope,  but 
hope  is  notorious  for  its  triumphs  over  experience. 

To  prove  that  Socialism  is  inevitable  is  just  as  simple  a 
problem  for  me  to  demonstrate  as  that  two  and  two  are  four. 
If  the  demonstration  that  two  and  two  are  four  should  prove 
to  me  something  I  did  not  like  to  know,  and  it  does  very 
frequently,  too,  I  certainly  would  not  so  stultify  myself  as 
to  refuse  to  admit  that  two  and  two  continue  to  make  four. 
Now  there  is  nothing  particularly  different  in  the  make-up 
of  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  myself,  and  whatever  difference  there 
is  should  make  him  still  more  likely  to  come  to  my  view  of 
the  case.  He  is  a  better  figurer  than  I  can  ever  hope  to  be, 
and  therefore  he  should  arrive  at  my  conclusion  upon  the 


Columbia's  Race  for  Liberty.  85 

mathematical  grounds  much  sooner  than  I  did,  once  his  at- 
tention is  called  to  the  problem.  Upon  the  ethical  ground 
he  certainly  has  far  more  reason  to  come  to  my  ground  than 
ever  I  had  to  be  here.  I  never  set  myself  up  as  a  man  to 
lead  the  prayer  meetings  and  as  an  elder  in  the  church.  I 
never,  in  fact,  made  the  least  pretense  of  any  altruism  in  my 
make-up.  I  simply  made  a  study  of  how  to  amuse  number 
one,  and  in  fact  I  have  never  professed  anything  different, 
even  since  I  became  a  Socialist. 

Hence  it  seems  to  me  that  Mr.  Rockefeller  as  well  as  Mr. 
Morgan,  who  are  both  good  at  figures  as  well  as  devoutly 
religious,  are  theoretically  bound  to  come  sooner  or  later  into 
the  collectivist  school  of  economics,  and  become  contributors 
to  this  magazine. 

They  both  pray  every  day  to  the  Lord  that  His  "will  be 
done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven."  I  would  ask  any  good 
Christian  who  is  not  a  Socialist,  if  such  a  thing  can  exist, 
what  is  his  idea  of  God's  will  on  earth?  Wherein  does  his 
idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  differ  from  the  idea 
that  the  Socialists  have  of  the  earth  under  Socialism?  Cer- 
tainly neither  Mr.  Morgan  nor  Mr.  Rockefeller  have  as  much 
cause  as  other  rich  men  to  disagree  with  the  Socialists  be- 
cause we  say  that  they  are  the  agents  who  are  working  out 
our  ideal.  Of  course,  I  can  understand  how  Mr.  Rockefeller 
would  not  agree  with  the  Democrat  or  the  Populist  who 
wishes  to  destroy  the  trusts,  but  I  do  not  see  wherein  he  and 
the  Socialist  would  have  any  room  for  discussion.  Even 
upon  the  point  of  private  ownership  versus  public  ownership 
of  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  Mr.  Rockefeller  would  be  in  agree- 
ment, for  we  both  say  that  the  change  cannot  be  made  before 
the  people  wish  it  done,  and  that  after  the  people  do  so 
declare  that  such  is  their  wish,  then  there  will  be  no  resisting 
their  will.  Probably  Mr.  Rockefeller  would  to-day  not  be 
in  favor  of  the  nationalization  of  the  trusts,  but  he  could 
easily  excuse  himself  by  saying  that  he  is  simply  averse  to 
doing  anything  that  the  people  do  not  wish  done,  and  cer- 
tainly he  would  be  fully  justified  in  his  contention  that  the 
people  have  done  little  to  indicate  that  they  wish  any  such 
step  taken. 

Young  Mr.  Rockefeller  declared  the  other  day  that  the  de- 
velopment of  the  trust  was  like  unto  the  development  of  an 


86  Wilshire  Editorials. 

American  Beauty  rose.  That  to  have  a  fine  rose  many  buds 
must  be  pinched  off  and  their  sap  turned  to  the  remaining 
one,  and  he  paralleled  it  in  saying  that  to  have  one  great 
business  many  smaller  ones  must  be  exterminated.  This 
again  is  in  line  with  the  Socialist's  idea.  The  Standard  Oil 
Trust  is  itself  but  a  large  bud,  and  it,  too,  must  be  pinched 
off  in  order  that  its  sap  may  flow  to  the  American  nation  as 
a  whole,  for  the  nation  is  the  American  Beauty  rose  that  we 
are  all  interested  in  developing  to  its  highest  possibilities. 

Pinch,  brothers,  pinch,  pinch  with  care, 
Pinch  every  Trust  that  absorbs  our  air. 


Mutation  Theory  Applied  to  Society.  87 


THE  MUTATION  THEORY  APPLIED  TO 
SOCIETY 

WHEN  one  states  that  it  is  his  theory  that  the  final 
move  of  society  will  be  in  the  nature  of  a  leap 
rather  than  a  slow  and  steady  progression  through 
the  successive  municipalization  and  nationalization  of  public 
utilities  until  all  wealth  is  finally  nationalized,  he  is  often 
condemned  as  being  unscientific  and  as  being  no  true  follower 
of  the  theory  of  evolution. 

To  be  called  unscientific  is  about  the  greatest  insult  that 
can  be  hurled  at  a  Socialist,  and  he  has  felt  a  certain  justice 
in  such  a  criticism  when  he  himself  feels  he  has  failed  to 
clearly  demonstrate  that  the  same  laws  which  govern  the 
evolutionary  development  of  plants  and  animals  also  hold  in 
the  development  of  the  social  organism  of  man,  of  society. 

If,  for  instance,  it  was  admitted  that  the  development  of 
the  deer  or  the  elephant  in  its  present  form  and  shape  from 
lower  forms  of  life  was  the  result  of  the  slow  and  steady 
progress  of  natural  selection  extending  over  millions  of  years, 
why  was  it  not  logical  to  insist  that  the  move  from  the  present 
competitive  man-eating-man  society  of  to-day  to  a  society  of 
brotherly  love  and  co-operation  must  also  require  the  slow 
progress  of  the  centuries  ? 

It  was  no  particular  comfort  for  the  evolutionary  yet  revo- 
lutionary Socialist  to  hear  that  the  researches  of  Geikie,  Lord 
Kelvin  and  other  scientists  showed  that  the  time  required  by 
the  theory  of  Darwin  for  the  development  of  the  higher  types 
of  animals  and  plants,  time  mounting  into  the  thousands  of 
millions  of  years,  was  simply  impossible  because  the  earth 
as  a  planet  in  a  condition  cool  enough  for  life  to  exist  was 
impossible  a  hundred  million  years  ago.  A  thousand  million 
years  ago  the  earth  was  an  incandescent  glowing  sun.  How- 
ever, the  scientific  proofs  of  an  evolutionary  descent  were  so 
positive  that  the  educated  world  generally  became  convinced 
of  its  truth,  notwithstanding  the  objection  of  the  lack  of 
time  declared  so  necessary  by  Darwin.    Then,  too,  there  were 


88  Wilshire  Editorials. 

many  missing  links  connecting  species  to  species,  which  the 
theologians  have  not  failed  to  point  out,  the  loss  of  which  the 
Darwinians  never  were  quite  able  to  satisfactorily  explain. 

However,  all  these  faults  in  the  Darwinian  theory  are 
remedied  if  the  "mutation"  theory  of  progress  is  adopted 
instead  of  the  theory  held  by  Darwin  of  a  slow  and  almost 
imperceptible  progress.  Those  holding  to  the  mutation 
theory,  or  the  "jump"  theory  think  progress  from  species  to 
species  to  have  been  made,  not  by  a  slow  process,  but  by 
sudden  and  unexpected  jumps.  Just  as  if,  for  instance, 
there  being  no  deer  in  the  world,  that  the  cows  of  a  certain 
herd  should  suddenly  and  unexpectedly  give  birth  to  a  num- 
ber of  young  deer  instead  of  calves,  and  that  these  deer 
should  then  interbreed  with  themselves,  and  so  give  rise  to  a 
new  species — to  deer. 

That  new  species  should  have  originated  in  this  manner 
without  apparent  reason  and  from  parents  so  very  different 
would  have  been  as  difficult  of  acceptance  by  the  early  Dar- 
winians as  the  story  of  the  creation  of  woman  from  Adam's 
rib. 

However,  a  number  of  recent  experiments  upon  the  lower 
forms  of  life  have  shown  conclusively  that  there,  at  any  rate, 
one  species  may  by  being  placed  in  a  new  environment,  give 
rise  to  a  totally  new  and  different  species,  and  if  this  may 
happen  among  the  lower  species,  there  is  possibly  no  sound 
reason  why  it  may  not  happen  among  the  higher. 

Recently  there  was  a  very  interesting  paper  read  by  Dr. 
H.  C.  Bastian  before  the  Royal  Society  in  London.  The 
Doctor  is  a  supporter  of  this  theory  of  the  production  of  one 
form  of  life  from  another  form.  Most  biologists  hold  to 
the  hypothesis  of  homogenesis  or  the  production  of  a  given 
form  of  life  from  the  same  form.  Dr.  Bastian  has  shown, 
however,  says  W.  E.  Garrett  Fisher,  in  the  London  "Mail," 
by  an  experiment  anyone  can  repeat,  that  one  form  of  life 
does  at  times  give  rise  to  a  totally  distinct  form,  under  the 
influence  of  purely  physical  conditions.  His  experiment  is 
as  striking,  though  it  deals  only  with  microscopic  and  lowly 
forms  of  life,  as  if  a  hen's  egg  were  found,  under  special  con- 
ditions of  incubation,  to  give  birth  to  a  duckling. 

"When  the  eggs  of  a  common  'wheel  animalcule,'  the 
Hydatina,  which  is  found  in  the  stagnant  water  of  many 


Mutation  Theory  Applied  to  Society.  89 

ponds  and  ditches,  are  allowed  to  germinate  in  small  stone 
pots  from  which  both  light  and  certain  invisible  rays,  which 
seem  to  play  a  part  in  the  process,  are  excluded,  Dr.  Bastian 
finds  that  some  of  them  invariably  give  birth  to  a  different 
kind  of  animalcule.  The  Hydatina  is  a  multicellular  or- 
ganism, which  belongs  to  a  class,  the  rotifera,  holding  a  place 
of  its  own  in  the  zoological  scheme.  "When  its  eggs  give  birth 
to  the  ciliated  infusoria,  which  Dr.  Bastian  has  obtained  from 
them  in  many  instances,  we  have  offspring  of  a  perfectly  dis- 
tinct nature  from  the  parent.  These  infusoria  belong  to  the 
simplest  class  of  living  animals,  the  protozoa,  each  of  which 
consists  of  a  single  cell.  Their  bodies  are  not  differentiated 
into  parts  as  is  the  case  with  all  higher  forms — including  the 
parent  Hydatina — but  the  solitary  cell  has  to  perform  all 
the  functions  of  vitality.  To  a  biologist  the  case  is  just  as 
remarkable  as  if  a  cat  gave  birth  to  a  sparrow,  or  a  hen's  egg 
produced  a  frog.  It  is  a  clear  case  of  the  transmutation  of 
life,  corresponding  closely  enough  to  the  transmutation  of 
radium-emanation  into  helium. 

"To  the  lay  student  of  the  problems  of  life  this  remarkable 
discovery  has  a  two-fold  interest.  In  the  first  place,  it  helps 
us  to  understand  how  all  the  wonderful  varieties  of  life  which 
now  people  the  globe  may  have  developed,  within  the  some- 
what limited  time  which  physicists  allow  for  the  operation, 
from  the  primordial  germs.  In  the  second  place,  the  fact 
of  the  transmutation  of  life,  once  established,  throws  some 
light  on  the  question  of  its  origin." 

That  heterogenesis  is  also  a  method  of  progress  among 
plants  is  being  every  day  made  clearer  and  clearer,  and  that 
the  same  will  be  made  clear  regarding  all  life  is  surely  only 
a  question  of  time,  is  my  own  belief. 

To  Professor  Hugo  De  Vries  the  world  is  most  indebted 
for  its  knowledge  of  the  facts  as  to  plants  in  relation  to  this 
profoundly  interesting  and  far-reaching  theory. 

His  book  "Species  and  Varieties,  Their  Origin  by  Muta- 
tion," published  by  the  Open  Court  Publishing  Co.,  of  Chi- 
cago ($5),  marks  in  its  way  the  greatest  step  forward  we 
have  had  since  the  publication  of  Darwin's  epoch-making 
"Origin  of  Species."  It  lights  up  many  of  the  dark  places 
in  the  Darwinian  theory.    As  the  author  says: 


90  Wilshike  Editorials. 

"A  grave  objection  which  has  often  and  from  the  very  outset  been 
urged  against  Darwin's  conception  of  very  slow-  and  nearly  imper- 
ceptible changes,  is  the  enormously  long  time  required.  If  evolution 
does  not  proced  any  faster  than  w^hat  wTe  can  see  at  present,  and  if 
the  process  must  be  assumed  to  have  gone  on  in  the  same  slow 
manner  always,  thousands  of  millions  of  years  would  have  been 
needed  to  develop  the  higher  types  of  animals  and  plants  from  their 
earliest  ancestors. 

Now,  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  duration  of  life  on  earth 
includes  such  an  incredibly  long  time.  Quite  on  the  contrary,  the 
lifetime  of  the  earth  seems  to  be  limited  to  a  few  millions  of  years. 
The  researches  of  Lord  Kelvin  and  other  eminent  physicists  seem  to 
leave  no  doubt  on  this  point.  Of  course  all  estimates  of  this  kind 
are  only  vague  and  approximate,  but  for  our  present  purposes 
they  may  be  considered  as  sufficiently  exact. 

In  a  paper  published  in  1862  Sir  William  Thomson  (now  Lord  Kel- 
vin) first  endeavored  to  show  that  great  limitations  had  to  be  put 
upon  the  enormous  demands  for  time  made  by  Lyell,  Darwin  and 
other  biologists. 

From  a  consideration  of  a  secular  cooling  of  the  earth,  as  deduced 
from  the  increasing  temperature  in  deep  mines,  he  concluded  that 
the  entire  age  of  the  earth  must  have  been  more  than  twenty  and 
less  than  forty  millions  of  years,  and  probably  much  nearer  twenty 
than  forty.  His  viewTs  have  been  much  criticized  by  other  physicists, 
but  in  the  main  they  have  gained  an  ever-increasing  support  in  the 
wray  of  evidence.  New  mines  of  greater  depth  have  been  bored,  and 
their  temperatures  have  proved  that  the  figures  of  Lord  Kelvin 
are  strikingly  near  the  truth.  George  Darwin  has  calculated  that  the 
separation  of  the  moon  from  the  earth  must  have  taken  place  some 
fifty-six  millions  of  years  ago.  Geikie  has  estimated  the  existence 
of  the  solid  crust  of  the  earth  at  the  most  as  a  hundred  million 
years.  The  first  appearance  of  the  crust  must  soon  have  been  suc- 
ceeded by  the  formation  of  the  seas,  and  a  long  time  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  required  to  cool  the  seas  to  such  a  degree  that  life  be- 
came possible.  It  is  very  probable  that  life  originally  commenced 
in  the  great  seas,  and  that  the  forms  which  are  now  usually  included 
in  the  plankton  or  floating-life  included  the  very  first  living  beings. 
According  to  Brooks,  life  must  have  existed  in  this  floating  condi- 
tion during  long  primeval  epochs,  and  involved  nearly  all  the  main 
branches  of  the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdom  before  sinking  to  the 
bottom  of  the  sea,  and  later  producing  the  vast  number  of  diverse 
forms  w7hich  now  adorn  the  sea  and  land. 

All  these  evolutions,  however,  must  have  been  very  rapid,  espe- 
cially at  the  beginning,  and  together  cannot  have  taken  more  time 
than  the  figures  given  above. 

The  agency  of  the  larger  streams,  and  the  deposits  which  they 
bring  into  the  seas,  afford  further  evidence.  The  amount  of  dis- 
solved salts,  especially  sodium  chloride,  common  salt,  has  been 
made  the  subject  of  a  calculation  by  Joly,  and  the  amount  of  time 
has   been  estimated  by  Eugene  Dubois.     Joly  found  fifty-five   and 


Mutation  Theory  Applied  to  Society.  91 

Dubois  thirty-six  millions  of  years  as  the  probable  age  of  the 
rivers,  and  both  figures  correspond  to  the  above  dates  as  closely  as 
might  be  expected  from  the  discussion  of  evidence  so  incomplete  and 
limited. 

All  in  all  it  seems  evident  that  the  duration  of  life  does  not  com- 
ply with  the  demands  of  the  conception  of  very  slow  and  continuous 
evolution.  Now,  it  is  easily  seen  that  the  idea  of  successive  muta- 
tions is  quite  independent  of  this  difficulty.  Even  assuming  that 
some  thousands  of  characters  must  have  been  acquired  in  order  to 
produce  the  higher  animals  and  plants  of  the  present  time,  no  valid 
objection  is  raised.  The  demands  of  the  biologists  and  the  results 
of  the  physicists  are  harmonized  on  the  ground  of  the  theory  of  mu- 
tation. 

The  steps  may  be  surmised  to  have  never  been  essentially  larger 
than  in  the  mutations  now  going  on  under  our  eyes,  and  some  thou- 
sands of  them  may  be  estimated  as  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
entire  organization  of  the  higher  forms.  Granting  betwen  twenty  and 
forty  millions  of  years  since  the  beginning  of  life,  the  intervals  be- 
tween two  successive  mutations  may  have  been  centuries  and  even 
thousands  of  years.  As  yet  there  has  been  no  objection  cited 
against  this  assumption,  and  hence  we  see  that  the  lack  of  harmony 
between  the  demands  of  biologists  and  the  result  of  the  physicists 
disappears  in  the  light  of  the  theory  of  mutation. 

Summing  up  the  results  of  this  discussion,  we  may  justifiably 
assert  that  the  conclusions  derived  from  the  observations  and  ex- 
periments made  with  evening-primroses  and  other  plants  in  the  main 
agree  satisfactorily  with  the  inferences  drawn  from  paleontologic, 
geologic  and  systematic  evidence.  Obviously  these  experiments  are 
wonderfully  supported  by  the  whole  of  our  knowledge  concerning  evo- 
lution. For  this  reason  the  laws  discovered  in  the  experimental  gar- 
den may  be  considered  of  great  importance,  and  they  may  guide  us 
in  our  further  inquiries.  Without  doubt  many  minor  points  are  in 
need  of  correction  and  elaboration,  but  such  improvements  of  our 
knowledge  will  gradually  increase  our  means  of  discovering  new 
instances  and  new  proofs. 

The  conception  of  mutation  periods  producing  swarms  of  species 
from  time  to  time,  among  which  only  a  few  have  a  chance  of  sur- 
vival, promises  to  become  a  basis  for  speculative  pedigree- diagrams, 
as  well  as  for  experimental  investigations." 

Professor  De  Vries  finds  that  Lamarck's  evening  primrose 
is  at  least  one  flower  that  is  to-day  constantly  mutating,  that 
is,  its  seeds  produce  plants  quite  different  from  the  parent, 
primroses  indeed,  but  of  a  different  kind,  and  that  these  new 
primroses  persist  in  their  deviation  in  their  progeny. 

This  conduct  of  the  primrose  seems  to  be  unique  among 
plants,  but  very  probably  when  further  and  closer  investiga- 
tions are  made,  other  plants  will  be  found  to  be  also  con- 


92  Wilshire  Editorials. 

stantly  mutating.    Certainly  it  would  seem  if  one  plant  can 
mutate,  then  all  may  mutate. 

As  to  animals,  there  is  no  direct  evidence  that  they  have 
mutated — but,  on  the  other  hand,  development  by  slow  degrees 
is  a  question  of  circumstantial  evidence — that  is,  there  are 
no  data  of  the  young  of  any  certain  animal  being  so  different 
as  to  constitute  a  new  species.  There  have  never  been  known 
cows  to  bring  forth  deer,  for  instance,  but  because  nothing 
like  this  has  been  noted  in  the  present,  there  seems  no 
reason  to  think  that  it  can  never  have  happened  in  the  past 
or  may  never  happen  in  the  futrue. 

There  are  many  missing  links  in  the  chain  which  leads  us 
to  the  little  five-toed  animal  which  was  the  great-great-grand- 
pa several  million  years  ago  of  the  horse  of  to-day,  and  it  is 
just  as  likely  that  many  of  these  missing  links  mean  so  many 
mutations  in  the  evolutionary  progress  of  the  horse.  That  is, 
that  the  reason  no  links  or  steps  are  found  is  simply  be- 
cause there  were  no  steps.  Nature  took  a  jump  and  skipped 
a  few  steps. 

The  theory  of  natural  selection  does  not  attempt  to  give 
a  reason  for  the  birth  of  a  new  species.  A  new  species  spon- 
taneously appears,  and  if  it  is  the  fittest  to  live,  then  natural 
selection  is  merely  the  sieve  which  determines  that  it  is  best 
fitted  to  live,  and  therefore  it  survives,  while  others  less  fit 
die.  And  it  may  be  here  said  that  the  new  variety  or  species 
may  or  may  not  be  a  step  higher  in  development.  It  may 
be  a  step  backward.  No  doubt  at  one  time  the  tapeworm, 
which  now  can  only  live  as  a  parasite,  had,  far  enough  back, 
a  very  self-respecting,  hard-working  worm  for  its  grand- 
father, who  made  his  own  living  in  the  open,  without  think- 
ing of  relying  upon  harboring  himself  inside  a  man  or  dog 
in  order  to  get  his  living  without  work,  just  as  many  an  idle 
capitalist  of  to-day  is  the  son  of  a  workingman  of  yesterday. 

To  account  for  the  appearance  of  certain  species  of  animals 
by  any  theory  of  an  imperceptibly  slow  variation  through  the 
workings  of  natural  selection  is  quite  impossible.  For  in- 
stance, take  the  giraffe,  which,  owing  to  its  long  neck,  can 
browse  off  the  branches  of  trees  quite  out  of  reach  of  other 
animals.  Now,  if  the  first  giraffe  had  a  neck  of  only  a  foot 
or  so  longer  than  this  short-necked  parent,  it  would  not  have 
been  a  bit  better  off  than  with  an  ordinary  neck.     It  was 


Mutation  Theory  Applied  to  Society.  93 

three-foot  neck  or  nothing  for  it.  Mutate  or  no  grazing  on 
the  high  trees  for  him. 

The  same  with  the  Australian  ant-eater,  which  has  such 
an  extraordinarily  long  tongue  that  it  can  reach  ants  in  the 
most  secure  ant  hill.  That  tongue  had  to  be  very  long,  to 
6ay  nothing  of  its  being  very  glutinous,  or  it  would  have 
been  no  improvement  at  all  on  a  short  tongue.  It  is  cer- 
tainly much  more  comfortable  to  have  a  mutation  theory  to 
explain  such  jumps  than  to  confess  you  cannot  explain  it 
at  all. 

However,  to  get  back  to  the  mutation  theory  as  applied 
to  the  evolution  of  the  organism  of  human  society. 

While  nobody  will  ever  probably  be  able  to  explain  why  it  is 
that  a  primrose  mutates,  because  nobody  can  understand  why 
the  cells  of  the  primrose  prefer  to  organize  one  way  more 
than  another,  yet  when  we  come  to  the  question  of  explaining 
why  human  society  mutates,  we  have  a  different  proposition. 
It  has  had  revolutions  in  the  past,  it  has  mutated  from 
feudalism  to  capitalism,  and  Socialists  say  it  must  mutate 
from  capitalism  to  Socialism.  And  the  reason  society  mu- 
tating can  be  explained,  is  because  we  ourselves  are  the  cells 
of  human  society,  and  we  know  why  we  move  from  this  place 
to  that,  and  why  we  organized  in  the  past  this  form  of 
government  in  Russia  and  that  form  of  government  in 
America,  and  why  we  must  re-organize  our  governments  again 
in  the  future  on  new  lines. 

To-day  when  we  look  back  over  the  pages  of  history  we 
can  often  understand  why  men  and  nations  had  to  act  just 
as  they  did,  yet  we  know  that  at  the  time  the  actions  were 
taking  place  the  people  of  the  day  attributed  the  deeds  largely 
to  the  free  will  of  man. 

The  French  Eevolution  at  one  time,  and,  in  fact,  even  yet, 
was  thought  by  many  good  people  to  have  been  the  work  of  a 
few  bloodthirsty  demons  leading  on  a  bloodthirsty  mob. 
Nowadays  we  have  the  perspective  of  a  century  to  aid  our 
vision,  and  we  can  see  that,  taking  things  as  they  were,,  the 
results  were  just  about  as  they  must  have  been.  To-day  we 
have  Miss  Tarbell  painting  Rockefeller  as  the  arch  enemy  of 
society,  a  Danton,  Marat  and  Robespierre  rolled  into  one, 
as  the  man  who  first  brought  iniquity  into  business,  as  the 
man  who  is  responsible  for  the  whole  corruption  in  our  na- 


94  Wilshire  Editorials. 

tional  life,  and  particularly  the  man  who  has  revolutionized 
competition  into  monopoly,  and,  what  is  more  to  the  point, 
Miss  Tarbell  undoubtedly  reflects  the  opinion  of  thousands 
of  her  readers.  Whereas,  in  reality,  Eockefeller  is  merely 
the  product  of  our  competitive  system,  and  if  he  had  not  been 
born,  we  would  have  had  some  one  else  who  would  have  per- 
formed his  task  of  consolidating  the  industries  of  the  country. 
In  a  hundred  years  from  to-day  there  will  be  sufficient  per- 
spective and  enough  loss  of  prejudice  for  even  the  Miss  Tar- 
bells  to  form  a  proper  estimate  of  Rockefeller,  who  is  merely 
a  cell  in  our  social  organism,  which,  through  a  fault  in  the 
organism  itself,  is  being  over-fed.  The  result  is  that  just  now 
he  has  an  undue  and  disagreeable  prominence  in  the  national 
economy,  just  as  has  an  over-fed  cell  in  a  man's  body  which 
has  become  a  wart  on  his  nose.  We  don't  blame  the  wart, 
why  should  we  blame  Rockefeller  ? 

We  know  what  a  wart  is,  and  we  know  how  to  remove  it. 
The  Socialists  know  that  Rockefeller  is  merely  a  wart,  and 
they  know  the  simplest  way  to  cure  it  is  to  absorb  it. 

"Let  the  Nation  Absorb  Rockefeller." 

Rockefeller  showed  us  how  to  force  the  competitive  business 
man  to  mutate — jump — from  competition  to  monopoly,  at 
the  very  time  when  all  the  scientists,  all  the  professors  of 
political  economy  were  gravely  proving  the  impossibility  of 
what  Rockefeller  was  doing  with  ease.  But  it  was  no  miracle, 
nor  was  Rockefeller  either  a  god  or  a  devil.  The  conditions 
of  business  had  changed,  and  this  not  only  allowed  him  to 
transform  competition  into  monopoly,  but  actually  forced  him 
to  do  so.  To  Rockefeller  a  change  was  a  matter  of  life  or 
death,  just  as  much  as  it  is,  when  the  puddle  dries  up,  to 
the  tadpole,  which  must  develop  lungs  and  breathe  air  as  a 
toad,  or  die  because  his  tadpole  gills  are  no  longer  of  use  when 
there  is  no  water.  With  Rockefeller  there  was  no  oppor- 
tunity of  half-way  measures,  no  chance  for  half  competition 
and  half  monopoly,  no  more  than  there  was  with  the  tadpole, 
when  the  puddle  went  dry,  to  partly  use  gills  and  partly  lungs. 
It  was  mutate  or  die,  and  mutate  instantly,  too,  for  both. 

Society  must  jump  from  Capitalism  to  Socialism  in  much 
the  same  manner.  The  capitalist  will  persist  in  building  up 
the  industrial  plant  to  the  highest  degree  of  perfection,  he 
will  give  employment  to  all  up  to  the  last,  and  then  suddenly 


Mutation  Theory  Applied  to  Society.  95 

he  will  find  it  does  not  pay  him  to  build  another  factory  or 
another  railway.  There  will  be  a  huge  and  insoluble  unem- 
ployed problem.  Then  will  come  the  crash,  like  a  bolt  from 
the  blue.  It  will  be  mutate  into  Socialism  for  society  or  die, 
and  it  will  be  a  question  of  "do  it  now.7'  The  tadpole  had  to 
get  very  busy  changing  into  a  toad,  for  he  could  not  last  very 
long  without  air,  and  it  was,  no  lungs,  no  air,  and  man  will 
have  to  get  just  as  busy,  for  he  cannot  last  very  long  without 
food,  and  it  will  be,  no  Socialism,  no  food. 

As  interesting  reading  along  with  Professor  De  Tries'  great 
work,  I  would  recommend  a  little  book  just  published  by 
C.  H.  Kerr  &  Co.,  of  Chicago,  written  by  William  Boelsche, 
entitled  "The  Evolution  of  Man."  In  fact,  for  many  it  may 
be  a  better  investment  to  buy  it  at  fifty  cents  than  to  spend 
five  dollars  upon  the  De  Vries  book. 

It  must  not  be  thought  that  an  adherence  to  the  mutation 
theory  in  either  biology  or  sociology  excludes  a  belief  in 
progress  by  slow  changes.  Not  at  all;  there  is  progress  by 
slow  stages  and  there  is  also  progress  by  jumps. 

Countless  changes  occur  in  plants  and  animal  life,  some 
imperceptibly  small  and  some  extraordinarily  large.  Those 
changes  which  better  adapt  the  organism  to  live  are  filtered 
out  by  the  sieve  of  Natural  Selection,  and  so  are  perpetuated. 

In  plants  and  animals  we  simply  know  that  such  changes 
occur,  but  why  they  occur  is  a  mystery.  Why  they  continue 
after  being  made  is  easily  explainable :  they  live  because  they 
are  the  fittest  to  live. 

However,  we  can  not  only  explain  why  certain  changes  in 
society  persist,  for  natural  selection  quite  accounts  for  it,  but 
we  can  also  explain  why  the  changes  occur,  and  also  predict 
positively  their  appearance.  Give  a  people  a  certain  economic 
environment  for  a  long  enough  time,  and  it  will  be  sure  to 
develop  a  certain  political  life,  as  certain  as  an  apple  tree  is 
to  bear  apples  when  planted  in  the  right  soil  and  climate. 

When  Luther  Burbank  wishes  to  develop  a  new  fruit  he 
plants  thousands  of  seeds,  and  out  of  the  thousands  of  prog- 
eny he  may  find  one  plant  he  thinks  worth  preserving.  He 
makes  a  bonfire  of  the  rejected.  If  he  does  not  find  the  plant 
he  wishes  he  repeats  the  process  next  season  and  keeps  it  up 
until  he  at  last  gets  what  he  wishes.  This  is  artificial  selec- 
tion, that  is,  selection  of  the  fittest  according  to  what  man 


96  Wilshire  Editorials. 

thinks  best  rather  than  selection  by  nature  of  what  can  best 
survive  in  competition  with  other  plants. 

Burbank  now  promises  us  a  thornless,  edible  cactus  which 
will  allow  man  to  use  the  deserts  for  his  food  supply.  Now 
this  spineless  or  thornless  cactus  could  have  only  been  devel- 
oped by  artificial  selection,  for  a  thornless  cactus  in  the  desert 
with  hungry,  grazing  animals  all  about  would  hardly  be  able 
to  demonstrate  its  being  the  fittest  to  survive. 

Because  a  cactus  without  thorns  is  the  fittest  to  eat  is  just 
the  reason  why  nature  decides  it  has  the  least  chance  of 
living  and  propagating  its  kind. 

In  to-day's  competitive  strife  the  man  who  is  the  fittest  to 
live  is  not  the  soundest,  sweetest  and  most  beautiful  fruit  on 
the  tree  of  humanity,  but  the  one  with  the  most  thorns,  the 
thickest  skin  and  hardest  heart. 

However,  just  as  Burbank  has  shown  us  that  the  most 
thorny  cactus  may  develop  into  the  least  thorny  one  when 
the  necessity  for  thorns  has  passed  away,  so  we  may  look  for 
man  to  drop  his  thorns,  too,  when  the  competition  which 
makes  them  necessary  passes  away.  In  fact,  Burbank  himself 
has  recently  said  that  just  as  wonderful  changes  might  be 
made  in  man  as  he  is  making  in  flowers,  if  only  the  children 
of  man  were  as  carefully  reared  and  protected  as  are  the 
flowers  in  his  California  nursery. 

How  wretchedly  we  are  caring  for  our  children  of  to-day 
may  be  judged  by  the  following  from  a  recent  issue  of  the 
New  York  "Sun": 

The  health  authorities  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Herman  Biggs 
have  just  completed  a  very  important  investigation  into  the  health 
of  some  of  the  school  children  of  this  city,  which  has  shown  a  preva- 
lence of  disease  exceeding  their  expectations. 

The  figures  compiled  by  the  medical  inspectors  and  now  in  Dr. 
Bigg's  possession  show  that  out  of  almost  14,000  children  examined 
more  than  6,000,  or  almost  half,  had  something  the  matter  with 
them. 

While  the  health  authorities  have  been  gradually  extending  their 
work  of  looking  after  the  health  of  school  children,  they  have  never 
gone  so  far  as  to  make  the  general  physical  condition  of  a  child 
part  of  the  work  of  the  Health  Department.  Until  recent  years  all 
that  the  medical  inspectors  in  the  schools  did  was  to  examine  all 
cases  reported  by  the  teacher  as  being  possibly  infections.  This 
work  in  itself  requires  a  lot  of  inspectors.  Later,  skin  diseases  and 
pediculosis,  which  was  especially  prevalent,  were  included. 


Mutation  Theory  Applied  to  Society.  97 

This  should  demonstrate  pretty  thoroughly  that  our  chil- 
dren should  not  fear  a  mutation  into  a  different  life  from  the 
present. 

The  mutation  theory  of  evolution  in  biology  seems  un- 
doubtedly the  true  theory,  for  by  it  all  the  lapses  hitherto  in- 
explicable in  the  "slow  progress,"  "step  by  step"  theory  of 
Darwin  are  explained.  Darwin  is  not  overthrown  by  it,  he  is 
merely  put  on  a  foundation  of  rock.  The  theory  certainly 
affords  a  stronger  analogy  for  the  comparison  of  social 
changes  with  biologic  changes. 

When  the  mutation  theory  is  at  last  accepted  it  will  remove 
one  of  the  strongest  objections  to  the  theory  of  the  early  ap- 
pearance of  Socialism  made  by  certain  evolutionists  who  have 
been  insisting  that  such  a  tremendous  change  as  that  from 
capitalism  to  Socialism  could  only  be  accomplished  by  the 
lapse  of  eons  of  years.  Right  now  when  this  nation  is  in  the 
heyday  of  industrial  prosperity,  with  prices  never  so  high, 
crops  never  so  good,  labor  never  in  such  demand,  the  day 
when  all  will  be  changed  seems  to  me  almost  as  near  as 
to-morrow,  the  day  when  prices  will  be  at  the  lowest  ebb, 
and  yet  labor  will  gain  nothing,  for  it  will  be  unemployed 
and  have  no  money  to  buy. 

Let  peace  be  made  between  Japan  and  Russia,  and  let  no 
new  war  break  out,  and  let  no  revolutionary  inventions  be 
made  in  industrial  development,  and  the  time  when  pro- 
duction will  far  exceed  demand  seems  to  me  to  be  almost  with- 
in the  year.  Let  a  huge  unemployed  army  rise  in  the  United 
States,  let  thousands  upon  thousands  of  our  smaller  capitalists 
and  farmers  become  bankrupt,  then  will  the  lessons  that  the 
Tarbells,  the  Steffens,  the  Russells,  the  Phillips's,  the  Sin- 
clairs,  the  Moffets  and  the  Tom  Lawsons  are  to-day  teaching 
the  public  bring  their  logical  result. 

The  public  mind  is  being  prepared,  in  a  way  almost  miracu- 
lous, to  receive  the  theories  of  the  Socialist  when  the  next 
industrial  crisis — and  at  this  hour  I  can  hear  its  approach- 
ing rumble — appears. 

Let  the  capitalist  look  well  upon  his  present  sun  of  capitalist 
prosperity,  for  when  it  next  sinks  it  may  sink  forever  and 
Socialism  rise  to  light  the  world  for  all. 


98  Wilshihe  Editorials. 


IS  SOCIALISM  PRACTICAL? 

BEFORE  deciding  whether  Socialism  is  practical,  we 
must  first  define  Socialism: 
"Socialism  means  the  government  ownership  of 
railways,  factories,  land  and  other  instruments  of  production 
and  the  payment  of  wages  upon  the  co-operative  system  in- 
stead of  the  competitive  system." 

Shortly,  instead  of  letting  Vanderbilt  own  the  railways 
and  charge  high  freight  and  passenger  rates,  taking  the  profit 
to  himself,  Socialists  say:  Let  the  people  own  the  railways 
and  fix  the  rates  on  the  basis  of  cost,  instead  of  the  Vander- 
bilt basis  "of  all  the  traffic  will  bear." 

Now,  nobody  will  say  that  it  is  unpracticable  for  our  gov- 
ernment to  own  and  operate  railways. 

Why  more  impracticable  for  us  to  operate  the  railways  than 
to  operate  our  post-office,  or  our  lighthouses,  or  our  city  fire 
department,  or  our  public  schools  ? 

Excepting  England,  most  other  nations  already  operate 
their  own  railway  systems.  Is  our  American  government 
more  incompetent  than  Italy,  Germany,  Eussia,  Japan? 

If  we  now  operate  and  own  a  railway  in  Panama,  why  can't 
we  own  and  operate  a  railway  in  Missouri  ? 

When  we  do  operate  our  railways,  can  we  not  charge  living 
and  reasonable  rates  for  freight  and  passengers  instead  of 
extortionate  rates? 

But  it  may  be  said  that,  even  admitting  the  government 
can  own  and  operate  railways,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  can 
own  and  operate  a  match  factory,  or  a  cigar  factory,  or  a 
bakery. 

I  cannot  see  why.  In  fact,  all  three  of  the  industries 
named  are  already  operated  by  some  government  somewhere. 

Russia  makes  matches,  Austria  makes  cigars,  Italian  cities 
bake  bread  in  public  bakeries. 

But,  granting  that  public  ownership  is  practical,  it  may  be 
asked  what  good  will  public  ownership  accomplish? 


Is  Socialism  Practical?  99 

Socialists  want  public  ownership  because  it  is  a  necessary 
prerequisite  to  the  co-operative  payment  to  the  workers. 

With  Rockefeller  &  Co.  owning  the  nation,  how  can  we 
have  a  co-operative  commonwealth? 

To  have  co-operative  distribution,  we  must  have  co-oper- 
ative (government)  ownership  of  the  railways,  the  factories 
and  other  means  of  production. 

Competition  keeps  us  poor  to-day. 

One  laborer  competes  against  another  laborer  for  a  chance 
to  work  and  consequently  wages  are  always  kept  down  to  the 
point  where  they  allow  the  laborer  only  the  mere  necessities 
of  life. 

Under  competition  increased  production  benefits  only  the 
capitalist,  never  the  laborer. 

In  fact,  the  machine  displaces  the  worker,  deprives  him  of 
his  employment,  with  the  result  that  an  increase  of  production 
often  actually  means  less  product  for  the  worker. 

Under  Socialism — co-operation — all  would  benefit  when 
production  was  increased. 

To-day  the  United  States  is  the  richest  country  in  the 
world ;  it  has  the  power,  not  only  to  make  all  our  own  eighty- 
million  people  free  from  want,  but  five  hundred  millions. 

But  instead  of  all  of  us  having  all  we  want,  ten  millions  of 
our  citizens  are  in  abject  poverty  and  forty  millions  more  of 
us  are  in  fear  of  poverty. 

Socialism  affords  us  a  plan  of  using  what  we  can  produce. 

Socialism  would  abolish  poverty. 


100  Wilshire   Editorials. 


DISTRIBUTION  THE  PROBLEM 

IT  is  especially  the  province  of  this  journal  to  point  out 
that  whereas  we  Americans  as  a  nation  have  made  in 
the  past  fifty  years  immense  progress  in  the  rapidity  of 
our  ability  to  produce  wealth,  yet  we  have  made  nothing  like 
the  same  progress  in  our  ability  to  distribute  that  wealth  to 
the  working  class  that  so  rapidly,  by  the  aid  of  modern  ma- 
chinery, produces  it. 

The  editor  of  this  journal  has  also  not  neglected  to  point 
out  that  this  failure  of  the  working  class  to  get  what  it 
produces  is  entirely  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  does  not  own 
this  modern  machinery  which  enables  it  to  produce  wealth  so 
rapidly. 

The  modern  machinery  referred  to  we  have  defined  broadly 
as  being  our  railways,  our  steamships,  our  oil  refineries,  our 
steel  mills,  our  cotton  and  woolen  mills,  our  flour  mills,  etc., 
etc.  In  other  words  what  we  mean  when  we  say  capital. 
And  of  course  we  include  in  this  broad  definition  of  capital 
our  dwelling  houses  and  the  land  upon  which  our  houses  and 
the  railways,  the  mills  and  the  factories  stand. 

These  various  forms  of  capital  are  today  almost  exclusively 
owned  by  certain  corporations  which,  owing  to  their  great 
size,  are  essentially  monopolistic  in  their  character,  and  hence 
are  generally  known  and  designated  under  the  name  of 
"Trusts." 

If  then  the  workers  owned  the  trusts  that  would  prac- 
tically mean  their  owning  the  machinery  of  production. 

The  only  practical  way  this  ownership  by  the  working- 
class  can  occur  and  exist  is  through  the  mediumship  of  the 
state,  the  government,  the  nation. 

If  the  government  or  nation  owned  the  trusts  it  would 
mean  that  each  and  every  citizen  would  have  an  equal  and 
joint  ownership  in  all  capital  and  an  equal  right  to  use  it 
for  his  own  benefit  without  being  under  the  necessity  of 
paying  rent,  profit  or  interest  for  such  use  to  Astor,  Rocke- 
feller, Rothschild  &  Co. 

Therefore  we  have  adopted  as  the  shibboleth  of  this  journal 
the  words,  "Let  the  Nation  Own  the  Trusts,"  as  expressing 


Distribution  the  Problem.  101 

in  the  shortest  manner  possible  what  we  are  fighting  for  and 
why  we  journalistically  exist. 

We  would  further  go  on  to  say  that  the  only  way  to  estab- 
lish this  ownership  is  for  all  those  who  wish  all  capital  to  be 
collectively  owned  by  the  nation,  to  assist  and  vote  for  the 
Socialist  Party,  which  is  the  only  party  which  clearly  and 
unqualifiedly  demands  such  complete  government  ownership. 

While  we  may  concede  that  a  partial  ownership  of  capital 
by  the  state,  such  as  municipal  ownership  of  gas  and  water- 
works, street  cars,  etc.,  and  the  national  ownership  of  rail- 
roads is  somewhat  better  than  no  public  ownership  at  all,  yet 
we  unhesitatingly  declare  that  the  advantages  of  such  partial 
public  ownership  are  so  slight  when  compared  with  complete 
public  ownership  that  no  one  who  has  read  and  fully  under- 
stood the  foregoing,  and  especially  no  one  who  calls  himself 
a  socialist,  can  justify  himself  in  voting  for  a  partial  public 
ownership  when  he  has  an  opportunity  of  voting  for  com- 
plete ownership  through  voting  for  the  Socialist  Party. 

As  long  as  any  capital  at  all  is  not  owned  by  the  nation, 
then  the  capitalists  owning  that  capital  can  demand  tribute 
from  the  workers  for  the  use  of  said  capital  and  thus  per- 
petuate the  present  regime  of  exploiters  and  exploited. 

The  emancipation  of  labor  can  only  be  accomplished  when 
all  capital  is  owned  by  labor.  That  this  fundamental  propo- 
sition is  quite  lost  sight  of  and  misunderstood  by  such  ad- 
vocates of  municipal  and  national  ownership  as  Mr.  Hearst 
can  be  seen  from  the  following  striking  and  suggestive  edi- 
torial taken  from  the  New  York  American  of  June  7: 

THE  WONDERFUL  STORY  OF  MODERN  PROGRESS. 

Somewhere  in  the  body  of  some  human  being  there  is  lying  a 
germ  that  will  produce  a  brain  able  to  emancipate  the  whole  of 
mankind  from  all  kinds  of  slavery  except  that  which  comes  wholly 
from  superstition  and  ignorance. 

It  will  be  the  brain  of  a  chemist,  not  that  of  a  warrior,  a  states- 
man or  an  artist. 

Human  slavery  exists  because  a  few  control  the  necessaries  of 
human  life  that  are  indispensable  to  the  multitude. 

Invent  a  scheme  by  which  all  may  secure  the  necessaries  of  life, 
and  money  will  no  longer  be  able  to  control  the  terms  on  which  we 
must  labor  for  food,  clothes  and  shelter. 

If  one  by  twenty  days'  pleasant  work  in  the  Spring  and  Fall  could 
secure  food,  clothes  and  shelter  for  the  year,  it  would  be  hard  to 


102  Wilshike  Editorials. 

induce  him  to  labor  twelve  hours  a  day  in  the  Subway  or  fourteen 
hours  daily  in  a  sweatshop. 

Is  such  a  thing  possible? 

Certainly,  and  it  is  nearer  consummation  than  most  of  us  imagine. 

A  hundred  thousand  of  the  greatest  men  in  the  world  are  work- 
ing along  the  lines  of  such  a  discovery,  and  the  strides  in  advance 
they  have  made  during  the  last  twenty  years  have  put  behind  them 
a  greater  space  than  remains  in  front  of  them. 

Let  us  glance  at  a  few  that  have  come  to  the  notice  of  the  people 
through  the  daily  press. 

Production  of  butter  or  cheese  quintupled  by  the  selection  of 
suitable  cows. 

Chinchona  trees  by  selection  forced  to  yield  forty  times  the 
normal  amount  of  quinine. 

Wheat  and  corn  forced  by  selection  to  triple  the  product  of  each 
ear. 

Clover  and  legumes  by  inoculation  with  benign  bacilli  forced  to 
gather  from  the  air  ten  times  the  usual  amout  of  nitrogen. 

Fruit  pests  destroyed  by  other  insects. 

Germany,  short  of  fuel,  forces  her  soil  to  produce  twice  the  com- 
mon crop  of  potatoes  that  will  secrete  four  times  the  usual  amount 
!of  alcohol. 

Meat  and  other  foods  saved  from  spoiling  by  the  inventions  of 
Pasteur. 

Artificial  germination  of  marine  animals  by  Loeb. 

Percentage  of  sugar  in  cane  and  beets  multiplied  fourfold. 

Twelve  years'  needed  growth  of  an  edible  nut  reduced  to  eighteen 
months  by  Burbank,  the  greatest  living  man,  who,  after  wasting  a 
life  on  fruits  and  flowers,  is  beginning  to  devote  his  gigantic  mind 
to  lowering  the  cost  of  a  food  supply. 

Greatest  of  all — the  discovery  that  an  atom  is  not  an  atom,  but 
the  smallest  of  atoms  is  made  up  of  seven  hundred  electrons  and 
an  ion. 

A  few  common  elements  compose  all  things. 

We  know  how  to  make  a  beefsteak  out  of  a  barrowful  of  dirt  and 
a  few  tiny  seeds.  When  we  can  dispense  with  the  aid  of  the  cow  and 
make  the  steak  direct  out  of  the  sulphur,  carbon,  nitrogen,  oxygen, 
phosphorous  and  hydrogen  that  are  its  chief  elements,  we  will  not 
have  to  work  in  sweatshops. 

When  we  can  make  electricity  from  common  hydrocarbons  direct, 
we  will  not  have  to  pay  five  cents  for  a  ride  in  the  Subway. 

The  secret  is  almost  within  our  reach;  a  hundred  or  more  of  the 
chemists  have  it  nearly  within  their  grasp.  It  is  not  a  folly,  like 
the  philosopher's  stone,  but  a  certainty  to  those  who  have  faith. 

What  will  there  be  left  to  do  when  food  and  shelter  are  practically 
free? 

Plenty! 

There  is  disease  to  conquer,  vice  to  eradicate,  pain  to  eliminate, 
and  all  evil  to  be  put  out  of  the  world,  and  when  that  is  done  no 
doubt  those  who  are  living  will  find  something  to  be  looked  after. 


Distribution  the  Problem.  103 

Mr.  Hearst  seems  to  think  the  reason  poverty  exists  is 
owing  to  the  fact  that  man  does  not  produce  enough.  He 
looks  to  the  emancipation  of  mankind  by  some  heaven-born 
to  be  chemist  who  will  show  us  how  to  make  beef-steak  direct 
from  the  original  elements,  the  carbon  and  nitrogen,  without 
thanks  to  any  cow. 

Mr.  Hearst  goes  even  further  and  says  no  statesman  will 
have  a  hand  in  the  emancipating  of  mankind. 

Now  this  is  exactly  one  of  the  points  where  we  beg  to 
differ  from  Mr.  Hearst. 

Already  chemists  and  other  scientific  men  have  shown  us 
how  to  easily  produce  enough  to  abolish  poverty,  but  we  have 
had  no  statesman  who  knows  how,  and  at  the  same  time  has 
been  able  to  get  the  ear  of  the  workingman  to  tell  him  how 
to  keep  what  he  produces. 

Mr.  Hearst  says,  "Human  slavery  exists  because  a  few  con- 
trol the  necessaries  of  life."  Yes,  this  is  true,  but  he  should 
have  explained  that  the  few  have  this  control  because  they  own 
the  capital  and  land  necessary  to  produce  the  necessities. 

If  Bnrbank  invents  a  walnut  tree  that  develops  in  eighteen 
months,  as  fast  as  an  ordinary  walnut  tree  does  in  ten  years, 
then  the  owner  of  the  land  upon  which  the  tree  is  planted, 
the  walnut  grower  makes  the  gain,  if  there  is  any  gain,  and 
not  the  working-class  which  owns  no  walnut  groves.  We  say 
if  there  is  any  gain,  for  we  know  that  competition  between 
the  owners  of  walnut  groves  will  soon  be  so  keen  that  it 
will  not  be  long  before  there  will  be  over-production  of  wal- 
nuts in  the  long  run  of  the  increased  walnut  yield,  and  the 
only  gainers  will  be  the  trusts. 

The  funniest  and  most  absurd  prediction  Mr.  Hearst  makes 
is  that  the  direct  production  from  coal  of  electricity  will 
reduce  the  five-cent  rates  on  the  New  York  Subway. 

Mr.  Hearst  has  printed  dozens  and  dozens  of  editorials 
showing  by  the  published  statements  of  the  company,  that  the 
cost  per  passenger  is  now  only  two  cents  each,  and  that  the 
five-cent  rate  is  the  result  of  the  private  ownership  of  the 
subway  by  Mr.  Belmont. 

If  direct  production  of  electricity  reduced  the  cost  of  car- 
rying each  passenger  one  cent,  does  Mr.  Hearst  think  that 
Mr.  Belmont  would  be  more  likely  to  reduce  fares  or  put 
the  cent  into  his  pocket? 


104  Wilshiee   Editorials. 

However,  we  do  not  wish  to  be  too  hard  on  Mr.  Hearst 
for  this  lapse,  for  we  know  that  it  is  an  error  of  one  of  his 
young  men.  Mr.  Hearst  is  now  in  Europe  and  cannot  revise 
every  editorial,  and  Mr.  Brisbane  has  so  much  of  his  time 
taken  up  with  the  Evening  Journal  that  he  cannot  look 
after  the  morning  edition. 

Mr.  Hearst  has  so  often  before  declared  that  municipal 
ownership  was  the  remedy  for  extortion  by  Belmont  that  it 
would  be  unfair  of  us  to  take  him  up  for  what  is  evidently 
a  mistake  of  a  sub-editor.  However,  the  main  indictment 
against  Mr.  Hearst  and  the  other  municipal  ownership  people 
stands.  Namely,  that  municipal  ownership  itself  is  at  best 
but  a  reform  measure,  and  does  not  touch  the  fringe  of  the 
problem  of  poverty. 

Poverty  exists  owing  to  the  capitalist  class  owning  the 
machinery  necessary  for  the  production  of  the  means  of  life, 
thus  making  the  working-class  their  dependants,  virtually 
their  slaves. 

Municipal  ownership  of  street  cars,  even  if  the  city  should 
make  transportation  absolutely  free,  would  not  tend  to  abol- 
ish poverty  any  more  than  free  transportation  upon  the 
elevators  in  an  office  sky-scraper  tends  to  abolish  poverty. 
Free  street  cars  would  mean  higher  rent  in  the  suburbs, 
just  as  a  free  elevator  means  more  rent  in  the  top  floors. 
The  landlord  skims  the  cream  every  time. 

Municipal  ownership  of  street  cars  will  conduce  to  better 
services,  cheaper  fares,  better  wages  and  conditions  of  work 
for  the  employees  and  to  the  elimination  of  corruption  of 
our  aldermen  by  the  street  car  lobby,  and  especially  to  the 
education  of  the  general  public  in  the  control  of  an  industrial 
function. 

All  this  is  to  the  good,  but  it  is  not  the  abolition  of  poverty, 
it  is  not  Socialism,  and  while  we  recognize  and  admit  the  good 
of  municipal  ownership,  yet  we  must  at  the  same  time  point 
out  the  impossibility  of  anyone  rightfully  cleaiming  to  be  a 
Socialist  who  votes  for  any  reform  such  as  municipal  owner- 
ship at  the  expense  of  casting  his  ballot  for  the  Socialist  Party. 

A  Socialist  should  always  vote  for  the  Socialist  Party. 

This  is  the  only  way  for  him  to  make  a  positive  and  un- 
equivocal declaration  that  he  wishes  to  have  Socialism  in- 
stituted. 


Wallace's  Great  Book.  105 


WALLACE'S  GREAT  BOOK 

I  SUPPOSE  many  have  gone  through  the  same  evolution  of 
thought  as  myself.  Born  and  raised  in  an  orthodox  fam- 
ily, which  held  firmly  to  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation 
and  the  anthropomorphic  conception  of  a  deity,  it  was  natural 
that  when  I  threw  off  such  superstitions  that  I  should  tend  to 
regard  everything  along  the  line  of  conventional  religious 
belief  as  absurd  and  unworthy  of  reverence.  I  think  this  is 
the  course  that  most  Socialists  have  gone  through.  First  we 
throw  off  conventional  belief  in  religion,  and  then  we  throw 
off  conventional  belief  in  economics. 

We  first  see  the  utterly  unscientific  basis  of  orthodox 
religions,  and  then  we  see  the  like  unscientific  basis  of  ortho- 
dox economic  theories. 

However,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  more  a  man  studies 
Socialism  the  more  he  finally  comes  to  understand  and  sym- 
pathize with  many  orthodox  religious  ideas  that  in  an  early 
period  of  his  evolution  of  thought  he  scorned.  For  instance, 
he  finds  men  talking  the  Golden  Rule  and  practising  Cut 
Your  Neighbor's  Throat,  and  when  he  finds  that  the  practice 
is  necessary  to  preserve  existence,  while  the  theory  means 
suicide,  he  says  that  this  preaching  a  Golden  Rule  that  can 
never  be  practised  is  the  limit  of  absurdity.  Later  on  he  be- 
comes a  Socialist  and  finds  that  the  theory  would  work  all 
right  if  we  only  had  a  socialistic  world  to  practice  it  in,  and 
when  he  sees  we  should  have  such  a  world,  and  moreover  that 
we  must  eventually  have  such  a  world,  he  commences  to  have 
more  respect  for  the  Golden  Rule  than  he  did  when  he  re- 
garded it  as  an  impossibility  either  now  or  at  any  time  in  the 
future. 

Before  he  understands  Socialism  he  scoffs  at  thanking  God 
for  daily  bread,  when  he  doesn't  get  the  bread,  and  he  will 
blame  God  for  not  giving  him  bread.  Later  on  he  sees  that 
it  is  man's  fault  and  not  God's  that  he  goes  hungry,  and  also 
he  understands  that  he  himself  is  one  of  the  very  men  who 


106  Wilshire   Editorials. 

have  been  supporting  a  system  which  makes  men  go  hungry 
when  God  has  done  his  part  in  providing  plenty  for  all. 

And  so  on,  from  day  to  day,  he  gets  to  realize  that  after  all 
there  is  a  much  better  basis  for  certain  religious  theories  than 
he  had  at  one  time  thought  possible,  although  he  also  knows 
that  his  reason  for  increasing  respect  for  such  theories  does 
not  in  the  least  justify  the  blind  believers  in  religious  dogma 
who  accept  things  upon  faith  rather  than  reason. 

One  of  the  chief  tenets  of  most  religions  is  that  this  planet 
Earth  which  we  inherit  is  the  centre  of  the  universe,  and  that 
the  sun  revolves  around  it  and  that  the  moon  and  stars  are 
simply  created  to  light  it  up  and  make  the  heavens  more 
beautiful  for  the  edification  and  enjoyment  of  the  greatest 
thing  ever  created,  namely,  Man.  That  it  was  all  done  for 
man,  and  that  man  is  the  image  of  God,  and  the  next  thing 
to  divinity  itself. 

The  early  astronomical  discoveries  in  the  Middle  Ages  so 
upset  conventional  beliefs  of  this  kind  that  astronomers  such 
as  Galileo  had  a  most  difficult  time  of  it  with  the  Church 
when  they  announced  that  the  earth  moved  around  the  sun 
instead  of  vice  versa.  Time  passed,  and  discovery  after  dis- 
covery was  made,  and  instead  of  the  earth  being  the  centre 
of  things,  about  which  all  revolved,  it  was  found  that  it  was 
simply  a  grain  of  sand  in  a  universe  of  apparently  infinite 
matter.  That  it  was  not  to  be  compared  in  size  with  many  of 
the  planets  in  our  own  solar  system,  while  in  comparison  with 
the  sun  it  was  less  than  a  pea  to  an  orange. 

And  then,  when  we  found  that  the  fixed  stars  were  millions 
in  number,  and  mostly  all  larger  than  our  own  sun,  we  nat- 
urally jumped  at  the  conclusion  that  these  other  suns,  so  much 
larger  than  ours,  must  have  systems  of  planets  of  their  own, 
and  that,  therefore,  there  were  millions  and  millions  of 
planets  like  the  earth  all  just  as  suitable  for  human  life,  and 
that,  therefore,  it  was  most  likely  life  did  exist  upon  them,  for 
otherwise  why  should  they  have  been  created  ? 

The  next  step  in  reasoning  from  the  "most  likely"  was  to 
the  "without  doubt,"  and  from  that  to  the  "unquestionably" 
was  a  small  step. 

And  all  these  steps  were  much  the  more  easily  taken  by 
men  like  myself  who — I  confess  it  to  my  shame — were  nat- 
urally disposed  to  adopt  any  theory  which  would  still  further 


Wallace's  Great  Book.  107 

discredit  the  orthodox  religious  view  that  the  earth  was  the 
centre  of  things  and  that  man  was  the  only  thing  worth  while 
on  the  earth. 

It  has  been  so  long  since  I  have  taken  much  interest  in 
things  religious,  if  I  ever  did  take  much  interest,  that  when  a 
book*  like  Wallace's  comes  along  and  tends  to  upset  all  my 
old  ideas  upon  the  subject  of  "Other  Worlds  Than  Ours"  it 
is  naturally  of  intense  interest. 

Dr.  Wallace's  conclusions  are:  (1)  The  stellar  universe 
forms  one  collective  whole,  and,  though  of  enormous  extent, 
is  yet  finite,  its  extent  being  determinable.  (2)  The  solar 
system  is  situated  in  the  plane  of  the  Milky  Way,  and  not  far 
removed  from  the  centre  of  that  plane.  (3)  The  universe 
throughout  consists  of  the  same  kind  of  matter,  and  is  subject 
to  the  same  physical  and  chemical  laws.  These  are  the  first 
three  conclusions  he  arrives  at.  There  are  three  more  in 
favor  of  which  the  author  claims  there  are  great  probabilities. 
(4)  The  only  planet  in  our  solar  system  inhabited  or  inhabit- 
able is  our  Earth.  (5)  The  probabilities  are  almost  as  great 
against  any  other  sun  possessing  inhabited  planets.  (6)  The 
nearly  central  position  of  our  Sun  is  probably  a  permanent 
one,  and  has  been  specially  favorable — perhaps  absolutely  es- 
sential— to  life-development  on  the  Earth. 

His  first  proposition,  viz.,  that  the  universe  is  finite  and  not 
infinite,  as  is  generally  held,  is  of  the  greatest  interest  and 
importance.  The  theory  of  a  finite  universe  is  in  line  with 
Socialist  philosophy,  which  regards  the  human  race  as  an 
organism,  and  also  with  my  own  particular  theory  that  the 
universe  itself  is  an  organism. 

It  is  manifestly  incongruous  to  think  of  a  thing  being 
an  organism  and  at  the  same  time  as  being  infinite.  If 
the  stellar  universe  is  one  collective  whole  then  it  must  be 
finite. 

When  a  little  child  looks  out  on  the  Earth  he  at  first  thinks 
it  infinite.     He  looks  upon  it  as  unorganized  and  unrelated. 


*  "Man's  Place  in  the  Universe:  A  Study  of  the  results  of 
Scientific  Research  in  Relation  to  the  Unity  or  Plurality  of 
Worlds."  By  Alfred  R.  Wallace,  LL.D.,  D.C.L.,  F.R.S.,  etc. 
Cloth,  326  pp.    Price,  ?2.50  net.    McClure,  Phillips  &  Co. 


108  Wilshike   Editorials. 

Only  with  increasing  age  and  understanding  can  he  ever 
realize  that  it  is  finite  and  organized. 

So  when  Rockefeller  as  a  lad  went  into  the  oil  business  it 
seemed  to  him  that  there  was  infinite  scope  for  the  extension 
of  the  oil  business.  That  the  oil  business  would  ever  be  so 
organized  and  extended  until  it  was  only  limited  by  its  taking 
in  all  the  Earth  was  quite  beyond  the  wildest  of  his  specula- 
tions, and  yet  it  has  all  occurred  within  his  own  lifetime,  and 
it  was  he  himself  who  was  largely  responsible  for  hastening 
the  result.  The  logic  of  events  was  his  best  instructor  in  the 
philosophy  of  the  oil  business.  Just  as  the  oil  business  ex- 
tended its  conscious  organization,  so  have  other  businesses 
extended  theirs,  until  to-day  it  is  only  one  of  many  businesses 
that  are  probably  on  the  road  to  a  worldwide  sphere  of  opera- 
tion. Now,  it  is  apparent  that  Mr.  Rockefeller  can  never 
have  complete  knowledge  and  control  of  the  oil  business 
until  he  has  a  world  organization  of  the  oil  business.  To 
know  it  he  must  know  its  limitations.  Similarly  we  cannot 
understand  the  universe  unless  we  know  its  limitations. 

To  me  this  Wallace  theory  of  a  finite  universe  must  be 
true  because  it  accords  with  my  deepest  philosophy  of  life. 

If  the  universe  is  infinite  and,  therefore,  unorganized,  then 
there  would  be  no  motive — that  is,  no  valid  fundamental  mo- 
tive— for  men  to  work  for  Socialism,  or  in  fact  to  even  desire 
to  live.  For  of  what  use  is  Socialism  if  it  is  simply  to  make 
this  world  a  better  place  for  men  to  live  and  nothing  more  ? 

Upon  such  a  theory  of  life  we  are  simply  intelligent  cattle 
preparing  a  more  comfortable  stable  for  ourselves. 

Suppose  we  do  introduce  Socialism  and  abolish  poverty? 
This  can  be  done  easily  enough,  but  why  should  we  wish  to 
do  it?  It's  no  answer  to  say  that  we  do  it  to  increase  the 
stock  of  human  happiness,  for  then  I  will  ask  why  should 
anyone  wish  to  increase  human  happiness?  The  reason  one 
wishes  to  increase  human  happiness  is  fundamentally  a  selfish 
one;  it  is  to  increase  his  own  happiness  by  becoming  a  cell 
in  a  healthier  organization  of  human  society  than  that  which 
now  exists.  If  your  finger  is  crushed  the  ceils  in  your  injured 
finger  are  not  more  anxious  to  become  well  again  than  are 
the  uninjured  cells  in  your  uninjured  finger  to  have  them 
made  well.  There  is  no  single  uninjured  cell  in  your  whole 
body  that  is  not  as  much  interested  in  having  the  injured 


Wallace's  Great  Book.  109 

cells  made  whole  as  if  it  itself  were  injured.  Now,  why  is 
this  ?  Simply  that  the  body  is  an  organism  and  a  very  self- 
conscious  organism.  It  knows  that  for  the  whole  to  be  well, 
the  parts  must  be  well.  There  are  some  insects  which  are  or- 
ganized well  enough  physically,  but  whose  nerve  centres  are 
so  badly  correlated  that  they  have  little  or  no  consciousness 
of  an  injury  to  themselves.  Some  wasps,  for  instance,  may 
be  beheaded  and  the  head  will  go  on  unconcernedly  taking 
food  with  no  body  attached  to  feed.  A  body  must  not  only  be 
organized  but  also  conscious  of  its  organism  to  really  live. 
As  individual  men  we  are  simply  cells  in  the  greater  organ- 
ism, human  society,  and  only  as  we  feel  this  do  we  tend  to 
realize  the  highest  life.  It  is  impossible  for  any  single  cell 
in  an  undeveloped  organism  simply  by  its  own  will  to  realize 
itself.  It  can  only  do  so  by  the  organism  itself  developing. 
I  may  wish  to  send  a  telegram  from  New  York  to  Boston, 
but  the  mere  wish  is  not  enough  to  accomplish  the  act.  Wires 
must  be  laid  and  the  instruments  made  and  men  must  be 
ready  to  co-operate  in  the  work  before  the  message  can  go. 
However,  if  I  never  had  the  wish  to  send  any  message  and  if 
no  one  else  ever  had  or  ever  would  have  any  wish  to  send  tele- 
grams from  New  York  to  Boston,  there  never  would  have 
been  any  telegraph  wires  laid.  Therefore,  to  realize  my  de- 
sires I  must  first  have  the  wish,  and  then  have  an  organism 
that  I  can  use  to  consummate  my  desires. 

Man  as  a  unit  is  nothing.  It  is  only  as  he  is  useful  to  the 
whole  that  he  lives.    Only  as  he  is  useful  is  he  happy. 

Again,  he  cannot  be  of  much  use  if  the  whole  is  badly  or- 
ganized. I  may  have  a  perfect  foot,  but  if  my  leg  is  broken 
the  foot  is  of  little  use  and  I  am  little  use.  I  may  be  a  perfect 
man,  but  if  society  is  so  badly  organized  that  I  am  not  fed 
then  I  am  of  no  more  use  to  society  than  if  I  did  not  exist, 
no  more  than  would  be  the  perfect  foot  to  the  body  if  the 
blood  did  not  flow  to  feed  the  foot.  The  foot,  to  support  the 
body,  must  first  be  supported  by  the  body. 

All  this  is  axiomatic  and  has  been  said,  and  better  said, 
many  times  before,  but  that  the  individual  is  merely  a  cell 
in  human  society  is  more  quickly  recognized  than  that  he  is 
merely  a  cell  in  a  much  greater  organism,  that  of  the  universe 
itself.  We  are  the  result  of  evolutionary  development  in 
adapting    ourselves   to    our   environment.      That   we   have 


110  Wilshire   Editorials. 

adapted  oiirselves  to  live  on  the  land  instead  of  the  water  is 
one  of  the  commonplaces  of  evolution.  It  is  obvious  that  we 
are  land  animals  and  that  we  need  land  to  live  upon. 

That  we  have  temporarily  given  up  our  title  to  land  to  a 
small  class  of  people  called  landlords  is  beside  the  mark.  We 
will  take  it  back  whenever  we  really  want  it. 

However,  that  we  must  have  land,  I  say  is  obvious,  and  it 
is  likewise  obvious  that  we  must  have  air.  And,  more  than 
that,  as  Professor  Wallace  remarks,  we  must  to  live  have  the 
small  amount  of  carbonic  acid  gas  that  is  in  the  air.  If  it 
were  not  there  then  plants  could  not  live,  and  if  there  were 
no  plants  there  would  be  no  food  for  animals. 

Wallace  goes  on  pointing  out  one  thing  after  another  in 
our  physical  universe  that  is  necessary  to  our  existence  that 
we  ourselves  hardly  think  of  at  all.  For  instance,  such  a 
small  thing  as  the  atmospheric  dust  he  shows  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  life,  for  otherwise  there  would  be  no  clouds,  and 
without  clouds  we  would  be  in  all  kinds  of  a  muss,  for  the 
details  of  which  I  must  refer  the  curious  to  the  book  itself. 
And  not  only  is  the  atmospheric  dust  a  good  thing  physically, 
but  it  is  the  dust  that  gives  us  the  blue  of  our  skies.  And 
further  it  might  be  remarked  that  not  only  is  the  material 
universe  necessary  to  us  physically,  but  it  also  has  an  aesthetic 
and  spiritual  value  of  perhaps  vital  importance.  Suppose 
you  were  fed  properly,  that  you  had  all  the  physical  necessi- 
ties of  life,  but  you  were  told  that  you  and  all  humanity 
would  forever  be  denied  any  contact  whatsoever  with  a  mate- 
rial universe  ?  That  you  would  never  see  the  sea,  nor  moun- 
tains, nor  birds,  nor  animals,  nor  flowers,  nor  stars,  nor 
moon,  nor  sun;  how  would  such  a  prospect  strike  you?  You 
would  be  likely  to  feel  that  you  might  as  well  be  dead  as  live 
such  a  life.  Or  suppose  you  successively  suffered  a  painless 
amputation  of  the  various  members  of  your  body.  First  you 
lose  a  hand,  then  a  foot,  then  an  ear,  and  so  on  until  "you" 
finally  are  reduced  to  a  trunkless  head;  would  you  consider 
life  worth  living? 

Professor  Wallace  suggests  that  it  is  quite  possible  that 
the  remotest  star  is  just  as  necessary  to  our  physical  life  as 
is  the  minute  quantity  of  carbonic  acid  gas  in  our  atmosphere. 
The  only  difference  maybe  being  that  in  one  case  we  know 
that  one  is  a  necessity  and  with  the  other  we  may  yet  have  to 


Wallace's  Great  Book.  Ill 

find  it  out.  He  puts  the  suggestion  purely  upon  the  physical 
basis,  whereas  I  extend  the  possibility  to  the  star  not  only 
being  a  physical  but  a  spiritual  necessity.  It  is  possible  that 
the  spiritual  and  physical  are  the  same. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  only  sane  hypothesis  of  life  is  that 
each  individual  life  is  dependent  upon  the  universe  for  its 
existence,  and  that  we  have  no  right  to  suppose  the  slightest 
grain  of  matter  could  be  lost  from  the  remotest  star  without 
its  having  a  profound  effect  upon  all  life,  upon  the  physical 
basis  as  well  as  the  spiritual  basis  of  life.  And  that  just  as 
we  cannot  imagine  any  adequate  life,  either  intellectual  or 
spiritual,  pertaining  to  the  individual  cells  in  our  body  except 
the  body  itself  be  alive,  and  alive  spiritually  as  well  as  men- 
tally and  physically,  so  we  really  are  just  as  wrong  in  think- 
ing it  possible  for  individual  man  to  be  really  alive  unless 
human  society  is  also  alive  and  conscious.  And,  moreover, 
just  as  man  is  conscious  of  being  a  part  of  society,  and  that 
society  is  conscious  that  each  and  every  man  is  a  part  of  it, 
so  does  the  life  of  man  increase. 

As  man  becomes  more  and  more  conscious  of  the  relation 
he  bears  to  human  society  in  particular  and  the  universe  in 
general  he  increases  his  capacity  of  life. 

The  greatest  capacity  for  life  would  exist  in  a  man  developed 
to  the  highest  degree  spiritually,  mentally  and  physically,  and 
living  in  a  self-conscious  society  having  the  most  perfect 
command  of  and  knowledge  of  itself  and  of  its  own  relation 
to  the  universe. 

And  this,  then,  takes  us  back  to  the  original  premise, 
namely,  that  the  universe  must  be  finite  if  it  is  an  organism, 
and  it  must  be  an  organism,  otherwise  man  would  lose  his 
motive  to  live. 

Man  lives  in  order  to  unite  himself  as  a  harmonious  chord 
to  a  harmonious  universe. 

He  lives  that  one  day  he  may  hear  the  morning  stars  sing, 
and  that  he  may  sing  in  unison  with  them.  He  lives  that  he 
may  be  one  of  the  pipes  in  the  organ  of  the  universe,  and  he 
lives  that  he  may  play  that  organ.  In  the  day  to  come  man 
will  feel  himself  as  a  part  of  a  conscious  universe,  and  the 
universe  will  feel  that  each  man  is  a  part  of  it,  just  as  to-day 
the  hand  is  now  conscious  of  being  a  part  of  the  body. 

Socialism  as  a  movement  towards  the  harmonious  organi- 


112  Wilshire   Editorials. 

zation  of  human  society  is,  then,  but  one  step  toward  the 
greatest  of  all  ends :  the  harmonious  organization  of  the  uni- 
verse. 

Wallace  is  right  in  his  theory  that  the  universe  is  finite, 
for  otherwise  there  would  be  no  reason  for  man.  However, 
altogether  aside  from  any  metaphysical  predilections  in  favor 
of  Wallace's  theory  that  the  universe  is  limited,  I  must  hasten 
to  say  that  his  physical  arguments  in  favor  of  that  view 
seem  to  me  to  be  unanswerable.  He  frankly  confesses  that 
not  being  an  astronomer  he  has  no  right  to  speak  with 
authority,  and  that  therefore  he  must  rely  upon  those  who 
have  authority  to  speak  for  him,  and  the  names  of  prac- 
tically all  the  great  astronomers  he  ranges  upon  the  side  of 
a  finite  universe. 

To  think  of  an  infinite  universe  is  about  as  difficult  as 
thinking  of  a  snake  with  an  endless  tail.  But  I  have  dwelt 
so  long  upon  the  first  proposition  of  Dr.  Wallace  that  I  have 
given  myself  little  space  for  his  other  propositions. 

His  second  proposition  is  somewhat  analogous  to  his  sixth, 
practically,  and  depends  upon  the  acceptance  of  the  first.  If 
the  Earth  is  near  the  centre  of  the  universe,  then  we  must 
first  conceive  of  the  universe  as  finite,  for  it  is  not  possible 
to  conceive  a  centre  to  infinity.  Where  there  are  no  bounds, 
there  can  be  no  centre.  The  Earth  is  at  the  approximate 
centre  of  the  universe  in  Wallace's  theory,  and  he  supports  it 
with  the  dicta  of  most  of  the  heavy-weights  among  the  astron- 
omers. In  fact,  Wallace  throughout  the  book  disarms  the 
criticism  that  he  is  no  astronomer  by  frankly  admitting  that 
he  himself  has  no  right  to  speak  authoritatively  upon  astro- 
nomical subjects,  and  that,  therefore,  whatever  he  may  state 
upon  such  subjects  in  corroboration  of  his  statements  he  in- 
variably quotes  astronomers  whose  reputation  gives  them  a 
right  to  be  considered.  However,  notwithstanding  all  his 
care,  the  critics  who  disagree  with  his  conclusions,  and  hardly 
any  of  them  agree,  have  quite  ignored  his  authorities  for  his 
astronomical  statements,  and  have  taken  them  as  originating 
with  Wallace  himself. 

Wallace's  fourth  proposition  that  the  Earth  is  the  only 
planet  in  our  solar  system  that  is  inhabitable  is  easy  of 
demonstration.  This,  in  fact,  is  accepted  as  a  fact  by  prac- 
tically all  astronomers  with  the  exception  of  my  friend  Pro- 


Wallace's  Great  Book.  113 

fessor  Lowell,  who  clings  tenaciously  to  his  theory  that  Mars 
is  inhabited.  Its  small  size,  it  being  but  one-ninth  the  size  of 
the  Earth,  means,  however,  that  the  atmosphere,  if  Mars  has 
any  at  all,  other  than  carbonic  acid  gas,  must  be  so  rare  that 
the  planet  cannot  retain  its  heat  by  night,  and,  therefore,  its 
surface  temperature,  during  the  greater  part  of  the  twenty- 
four  hours,  is  below  the  freezing  point,  and  this,  of  course, 
is  hardly  favorable  to  life. 

Wallace  further  points  out  by  what  a  set  of  curious  coinci- 
dences the  Earth  is  habitable  for  man,  and  that  none  of  these 
conditions  exist  on  the  other  solar  planets  and  are  very  un- 
likely to  exist  upon  the  planets,  if  any  such  exist,  of  any  other 
solar  system.  All  this  is  so  contrary  to  the  ideas  of  modern 
men  of  science  that  there  has  naturally  been  raised  a  wail  of 
protest  that  is  more  pathetic  than  convincing. 

I  can  say  that  I  for  one  approached  Wallace's  book  with  a 
strong  belief  in  the  theory  that  there  were  very  likely  millions 
of  worlds  all  about  as  suitable  for  man  as  is  the  Earth,  and 
that  it  was  more  than  likely  that  several  millions  of  these 
worlds  were  inhabited  not  only  by  beings  equal  to  man  but 
probably  very  much  higher  in  development,  physically  and 
mentally.  Wallace  has  convinced  me  that  I  was  wrong, 
and  I  know  of  nothing  more  stimulating  to  the  intellect  than 
to  run  across  a  book  that  upsets  all  your  preconceived  ideas. 
I  am  only  too  glad  to  urge  all  our  readers  not  to  fail  to  read 
the  book  before  they  make  up  their  minds  that  Wallace  is 
wrong.  If  they  depend  upon  the  criticisms,  especially  this 
criticism,  they  will  get  no  idea  of  the  strength  of  his  argu- 
ment. 

Wallace  is  the  most  distinguished  scientist  of  the  age;  he 
is  the  co-discoverer  with  Darwin  of  the  theory  of  the  origin 
of  species,  and  it  is  only  through  his  great  modesty  that 
he  is  not  so  well  known  in  that  connection  as  is  Darwin. 

He  is  an  avowed  Socialist,  and  one  of  the  most  delightful 
and  lovable  of  men  it  has  ever  been  my  privilege  to  meet. 


114  ,Wilshire   Editorials. 


r 


L 


JANE  ADDAMS,  ARTIST 

WHILE  in  Chicago  last  month,  I  had  the  pleasure  of 
meeting  Miss  Jane  Addams  and  incidentally  seeing 
her  creation,  Hull  House.  I  am  sure  that  if  every 
one  felt  as  I  do,  the  great  artists  would  have  little  time  for 
work,  for  their  lives  would  be  one  long,  tiresome  exhibition 
of  themselves  rather  than  their  creations. 

To  me  the  artist  is  always  so  much  greater  than  his  work, 
that  I  never  care  for  the  one  if  I  can  experience  the  other. 

However,  fortunately  for  the  artists,  all  men  are  not  of 
my  mind  and  hence  they  escape  a  perpetual  race  to  be  free 
from  boredom,  and  are  allowed  time  to  exhibit  themselves  in 
other  shapes  than  their  flesh  and  blood. 

One  of  the  ways  that  Miss  Addams  has  thus  had  time  in 
which  to  exhibit  her  soul  in  material  shape,  is  in  the  bricks  and 
mortar  of  Hull  House,  and  in  the  society  she  has  gathered 
there  to  carry  out  her  program. 

In  styling  Miss  Addams  an  artist,  and  a  great  one,  too,  I 
do  not  wish  the  unthinking  to  gather  that  I  mean  she  paints 
pictures.  When  one  says  an  artist,  without  explanation,  this 
is  usually  what  is  thought  to  be  meant.  Of  course  it  is  a 
mistake. 

An  artist  is  one  who  precipitates  ideal  forms  upon  man- 
kind. He  may  work  on  a  canvas  with  paints,  a  painter;  he 
may  work  on  his  body,  an  actor;  he  may  simply  work  upon 
society,  an  j^itator. 

Miss  Addams  may  he  a  worker  in  paints,  she  is  a  worker 
in  mankind.  It  is  the  success  with  which  the  ideal  is  pre- 
sented that  constitutes  the  success  of  the  artist,  and  the 
greater  and  grander  the  ideal,  and  the  more  successfully  it  is 
presented,  the  greater  the  artist. 

The  Socialist,  having  for  his  material  to  mould  into  his 
ideal  the  whole  of  human  society,  if  not,  indeed,  the  whole 
universe,  certainly  has  the  grandest  ideal  that  it  is  possible 
for  a  human  mind  to  conceive.  However,  he  only  becomes 
an  artist  when  he  presents  his  ideal  in  a  material  shape  that 


Jane  Addams,  Artist.  115 

the  world  may  see  beauties  which  hitherto  have  existed  hid- 
den within  his  mind. 

I  may  have  a  picture  of  a  horse  within  my  mind's  eye 
quite  as  fine  as  any  that  Rosa  Bonheur  ever  put  upon  canvas, 
but  until  I  can  precipitate  in  material  shape  my  ideal  of  the 
horse  upon  canvas  I  am  not  an  artist. 

The  personality  of  the  artist  is  attractive  on  account  of  the  u 
reciprocity  existing  between  the  creator  and  the  creature. 

An  artist  cannot  create  a  work  of  art  without  enriching  . 
his  own  soul  as  much,  subjectively,  as  he  has  enriched  the  J 
soul  of  the  world  objectively. 

The  world  cannot  reward  the  artist,  for  his  reward  comes, 
not  only  in  the  joy  of  creation,  but  in  the  contemplation  of 
his  own  soul,  which  he  sees  shining  in  his  work. 

A  work  of  art  is  a  mirror  reflecting  the  artist's  soul  to  the 
world  in  general  and  to  himself  in  particular. 

The  artist  focalizes  the  ideals  of  a  people.  If  a  people 
have  inharmonious  social  relations  their  ideals  are  shattered 
and  there  cannot  be  the  great  works  of  art  produced  that 
are  seen  as  a  resultant  of  more  perfect  social  relations. 

I  have  this  morning's  Toronto  "World"  in  my  hand  and 
notice  the  following  item: 

Athens,  Oct.  27. — The  beautiful  broken  bronze  statue  of  Mercury 
which  was  found  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea  near  the  island  of  Anti- 
cythera,  south  of  Cape  Matapan,  in  the  spring  of  1901,  has  been 
pieced  together  by  M.  Andre,  a  French  expert.  The  task  has  been 
performed  with  skill,  and  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  statue 
was  reconstructed  from  numerous  fragments. 

It  is  rather  more  than  life  size,  and  is  of  the  finest  Greek 
workmanship.  It  is  considered  to  rival  the  exquisite  marble  Mer- 
cury of  Praxiteles,  which  was  found  at  Mount  Olympus  in  1877 
and  which  has  hitherto  been  deemed  the  most  beautiful  statue  in 
the  world.  Apart  from  its  singular  beauty  it  has  a  peculiar  value 
as  being  the  only  extant  example  of  an  undoubted  original  bronze 
statue  of  the  fourth  century  before  Christ. 

I  wonder  if  it  has  never  struck  with  wonder  many  people 
who  are  so  proud  of  the  material  progress  of  the  Twentieth 
Century  that  when  we  come  to  art  we  cannot  chip  out  a 
single  statue  having  the  glory  of  one  little  pieced-together 
Mercury  fished  out  of  the  sea  in  fragments,  wherein  it  has 
lain  for  over  two  thousand  years.  Here  we  have  the  marble, 
the  tools — pneumatic  chisels  if  need-  be — the  leisure,  the 


116  Wilshire   Editorials. 

desire,  and  even  the  artists,  but  we  cannot,  with  all  our 
work,  get  results  that  were  simply  play  for  the  Greeks.  It  is 
simply  because  our  artists  have  no  audience.  They  have  no 
artistic  society  to  stimulate  them.  When  Praxiteles  worked 
he  felt  the  applause,  the  cultivated  applause,  of  all  the  Greek 
nation  saturated  to  its  core  with  love  for  beauty.  To-day 
a  few  of  us  think  we  enjoy  beautiful  things,  and  more  of  us 
pretend  to  enjoy  them,  but  most  of  us  never  have  a  chance 
to  realize  that  beauty  exists  to  enjoy. 

The  Greek  society  was  a  healthy  one  and  one  in  which 
all,  except  the  slaves  who  were  unconsidered,  had  a  pleasur- 
able part  to  play.  The  differences  in  individual  fortunes 
were  not  such  that  the  mass  of  society  was  continually  at 
the  verge  of  starvation  while  a  few  had  so  much  wealth  that 
they  did  not  know  what  to  do  with  it.  They  were  continually 
at  war  with  other  nations  and  had  come  to  feel  the  absolute 
necessity  of  being  interested  in  and  caring  for  each  other's 
welfare  if  they  wished  to  preserve  their  own  welfare. 

War  is,  in  itself,  inartistic,  but  it  has  been  the  main  factor 
in  the  past  of  welding  societies  together,  which  was  a  neces- 
sary preliminary  for  them  to  produce  Art. 

However,  I  am  a  long  time  coming  to  my  point  regarding 
Miss  Addams  and  Art.  I  certainly  did  not  anticipate  taking 
'  in  Athens  when  I  began  to  speak  of  Chicago. 

Miss  Addams  is  trying  to  form  a  nucleus  for  an  Art  Center 
in'  Chicago,  and  while  from  a  certain  point  of  view  her  task 
is  an  absolutely  hopeless  one,  considering  the  hostility  of 
the  environment,  yet  there  is  a  view  of  her  work  that  per- 
haps may  justify  it. 

Certainly  we  would  hardly  think  of  ever  making  hell  any 
cooler  by  dropping  snowballs  into  it.  But  if  the  Devil  or 
his  friends  there  ever  happened  to  be  struck  by  one  of  the 
snowballs,  he  might  be  brought  into  the  way  of  thinking 
that  it  would  be  desirable  to  seek  means  of  rendering  the 
temperature  cooler.  On  a  hot  day  a  man  finds  by  accident, 
possibly,  that  waving  a  palm  leaf  makes  him  more  com- 
fortable. He  invents  the  palm-leaf  fan,  later  on  he  calls 
electricity  to  his  aid  and  has  the  electric  fan,  and  some  day 
he  will  cool  his  house  in  summer  as  much  as  a  matter  of 
course  as  he  now,  Baer  willing,  heats  it  in  winter. 

Man  must  first  have  the  wish  for  a  thing  before  he  can 


Jane  Addams,  Artist.  11? 

get  it.  He  will  not  wish  it  until  he  has  reason  to  know  its 
possession  is  both  pleasurable  and  possible. 

The  Chicago  proletariat  would  all  want  the  beautiful 
life  that  Miss  Addams  presents  to  them  in  Hull  House  as  a 
possibility,  if  they  could  all  see  it.  The  trouble  is  that  after 
all  there  are  but  few  that  ever  see  it,  and  those  that  do  see  it 
have  no  practical  plan  presented  to  them  for  attaining  it. 

This  plan  of  Hull  House  to-day  to  realize  a  better  life 
for  the  poor  is  apparently  largely  dependent  upon  the  re- 
establishment  of  primitive  industries  in  Chicago,  the  making 
of  pottery  and  the  weaving  of  cloth  by  hand,  and  the  sale 
of  such  hand-made  goods  to  rich  people  who  have  a  fancy 
for  them  and  who  can  afford  to  pay  for  hand  labor  to  make 
a  thing  that  a  machine  will  make  for  about  one  per  cent,  of 
the  cost,  and  of  a  quality  that  will  impress  most  people  as 
of  a  superior  utility  value. 

Now  I  do  not  wish  to  create  the  impression  that  a*  gifted 
woman  like  Miss  Addams  thinks  such  a  work  as  being  of 
any  good  except  as  leading  to  the  desire  for  those  social  con- 
ditions which  will  enable  all  of  us  to  make  what  we  please 
for  the  joy  of  making.  My  only  difference  with  her  is  as  to 
whether  the  time,  money  and  talent  she  is  devoting  to  Hull 
House  could  not  probably  be  used  to  a  greater  advantage  in 
another  way  to  attain  the  same  end. 

Our  end  is  the  same — the  Kingdom  of  God  on  Earth — 
we  differ  as  to  the  best  means. 


118  Wilshire   Editorials. 


AN   INTERNATIONAL  OFFICE  SEEKER 

New  York,  Sept.  12th,  1902. 
H.  Gaylord  Wilshire,  Esq., 

125  East  23d  Street,  New  York  City. 

Dear  Comrade: — The  undersigned  were  appointed  as  a  committee 
to  notify  you  that  the  Social  Democratic  Party  Convention  of  the 
Tenth  Congressional  District  of  Manhattan,  held  on  September  5th, 
1902,  at  60  Second  Ave.,  New  York  City,  unanimously  nominated 
you  as  candidate  for  Congress  of  the  Social  Democratic  Party  in 
that  district.  The  nomination  was  made  in  the  interest  of  the 
Socialist  cause  which,  we  believe,  will  be  furthered  by  your  candi- 
dacy, and  this  we  submit  to  your  consideration  as  the  chief  induce- 
ment for  your  acceptance.  There  is  no  place  in  this  country,  and, 
therefore,  in  the  world,  where  a  Socialist  gain  or  a  Socialist  victory 
can  be  of  greater  consequence  to  Socialism  than  in  New  York  City, 
for  New  York  City  is  incontestably  the  nervous  centre  of  the 
United  States.  A  blow  struck  at  the  capitalist  system  here  will 
have  the  most  telling  effect.  A  Socialist  victory  in  New  York  will 
thrill  our  friends  the  world  over  with  joy  and  fill  our  foes  with 
dismay.  For  a  Socialist  who  can  and  will  make  a  hard  fight,  such 
a  victory  in  the  Tenth  District  is  undoubtedly  possible. 

There  is  no  necessity  to  dwell  long  on  the  reasons  why  we  have 
chosen  you  for  our  standard  bearer.  For  many  years  you  have 
fought  for  the  cause  fearlessly  and  ably,  both  with  speech  and  pen. 
Your  name  needs  no  introduction.  It  has  become  synonymous  with 
Socialism.  All  who  know  you,  know  you  as  a  true  comrade  in  the 
:    Socialist  ranks  and  a  Royal  Socialist  in  the  Socialist  movement. 

We  urge  you  to  accept  the  nomination  offered  to  you,  not  as  a 
favor,  but  in  the  interest  of  Socialism. 

We  remain  fraternally  yours, 

Herman  Rich,  et  al.,  Committee. 

I  think  I  must  certainly  be  classed  as  the  Champion 
International  Peripatetic  Office  Seeker. 

Here  I  am  again  running  for  office  in  New  York  City,  for 
I,  of  course,  accepted  the  above  invitation.  Nobody  ever 
refuses  any  nomination  for  office  except  to  the  Vice-Presi- 

*  Socialist  Party  is  the  name  of  the  political  organization  of  the 
Socialists  in  the  United  States,  but  owing  to  technical  reasons 
which  existed  at  that  time  in  New  York  State,  the  name  Social 
Democratic  Party  was  used  instead  of  Socialist  Party. 


An  International  Office  Seeker.  119 

dency.  Only  six  months  ago  I  was  worrying  the  Canadian 
public  seeking  their  suffrages  for  Parliament.  Two  years 
ago  I  was  running  for  Congress  in  California.,  and  this  was 
my  second  offense,  as  I  did  the  same  thing  there  twelve  years 
ago.  Ten  years  ago  I  ran  for  Attorney  General  of  New  York, 
and  eight  years  ago  I  was  standing  as  a  Parliamentary  candi- 
date in  Manchester,  England. 

Let  him  who  can,  challenge  this  record! 

Of  course,  I  always  stood  as  a  Socialist,  and,  needless  to 
say,  I  was  always  successful,  although  never  elected. 

We  Socialists  don't  run  for  office  primarily  to  get  elected. 
That  is  quite  a  secondary  consideration.  We  go  into  politics 
for  the  educational  advantages  of  a  Socialist  campaign.  The 
'.elections  give  us  an  excuse  to  talk,  and  at  such  times  we 
excite  the  interest  of  the  people  sufficiently  for  them  to 
listen  more  readily  to  what  we  have  to  say.  The  mere 
power  to  act,  even  if  never  exercised,  will  always  interest  the 
possessor  in  considering  a  possible  action,  whereas  if  he  were 
powerless  he  would  be  dead  to  your  appeals. 

There  is  only  one  day  in  the  year  when  the  American 
People  have  any  power,  and  that  is  on  Election  Day.  For 
all  the  use  they  ever  make  of  it,  they  might  just  as  well  never 
have  it ;  but  you  don't  cut  off  a  baby's  legs  because  he  don't 
use  them  the  first  month,  and  it  would  be  equally  as  silly  to 
say  our  right  to  vote  is  useless  simply  because  we  have  not 
yet  the  sense  to  use  it. 

I  am  simply  one  of  the  nurses  teaching  the  American 
Voting  Baby  how  to  use  his  Voting  Legs.  I  am  trying  to 
induce  him  to  struggle  out  of  the  Slough  of  Poverty,  in 
which  he  is  now  mired,  up  to  the  Table  Land  of  Universal 
Wealth  and  Happiness. 

If  we  go  far  enough  back  in  the  development  of  man  we 
will  find  that  our  ancestors  had  their  beginning  in  the 
water.  There  was  a  time  when  there  was  no  land,  and, 
naturally,  there  were  no  land  animals.  When  the  waters 
receded  and  the  land  appeared,  there  was  no  wild  rush  of 
water  animals  to  leave  the  water  and  live  on  dry  land,  no 
more  than  there  is  to-day.  However,  there  was  warfare 
going  on  between  the  different  water  animals,  and  at  times 
some  of  them  had  to  crawl  out  on  the  land  to  escape  those 
enemies  in  the  water  who  could  not  follow  them  there — 


120  Wilshiee   Editorials. 

something  like  the  flying  fish  nowadays,  leaving  the  sea  for 
a  flight  in  the  air  to  escape  its  foes.  These  first  chaps  never 
went  on  the  land  because  they  liked  it  better  than  the  water. 
On  the  contrary  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  they  felt  almost  like 
the  typical  fish  out  of  water.  But  it  was  dry  land  or  death, 
and  they  took  the  lesser  of  the  two  evils. 

We  ourselves  are  to-day  land  animals,  not  because  our  re- 
mote ancestors  deliberately  decided  that  land  was  a  pleasanter 
abode  than  water,  but  simply  because  they  had  no  other 
choice  if  they  wanted  to  be  ancestors.  Man  is  like  the  rest 
of  all  living  creatures — he  seldom  moves  unless  he  must. 
When  the  puddle  dries  up,  the  tadpole  must  take  to  the 
land  and  be  a  froggy  or  he  will  die  in  the  mud  and  never 
live  to  "a-wooing  go." 

However,  all  the  frogs  in  the  world  might  croak  their 
lungs  out  in  praise  of  land  over  water,  but  never  a  young  tad- 
pole will  ever  leave  that  water  until  the  time  comes. 

While  I  confess  all  this,  and  admit  that  I  am  simply  the 
Bullfrog  on  the  Bank  Singing  to  the  Tadpole  in  the  Pool, 
yet  I  say  it  is  just  as  useless  to  argue  with  me  as  to  the 
futility  of  such  singing,  as  it  is  to  argue  with  a  bullfrog  as 
to  the  futility  of  croaking.  It's  a  stunt  we  both,  froggy  and 
I,  like  to  do,  quite  irrespective  of  any  apparent  result,  and 
anyway  it  is  not  useless. 

Even  if  the  tadpole  will  not  leave  the  pool  until  its  legs 
commence  to  sprout,  no  one  can  say  how  much  influence  the 
frog's  song  on  the  bank  has  not  had  to  do  with  the  hastening 
of  that  sprouting.  The  mind  controls  the  body  of  frogs  as 
well  as  of  men. 

It  may  likewise  be  said  that  the  body  controls  the  mind. 
If  you  cut  off  a  tadpole's  tail  he  will  live  all  right,  but  he 
never  becomes-  a  frog.  His  legs  never  develop,  nor  does  his 
mind.    He  lives  and  dies  a  tadpole. 

It's  the  same  way  with  a  man.  If  you  cut  off  the  oppor- 
tunities for  his  physical  development  you  at  the  same  time, 
and  in  almost  a  like  degree,  cut  off  his  possibilities  for  in- 
tellectual development.  It  is  most  important  that  we  in 
our  education  of  our  children,  our  little  human  tadpoles, 
give  them  a  full  chance  of  physical  development,  if  we  expect 
an  intellectual  development.  And  if  we  expect  a  spiritual  and 
moral  development  we  must  have  an  intellectual  development. 


An  International  Office  Seeker.  121 

For  the  soul's  sake  we  must  let  our  legs  have  a  chance  to 
develop. 

Here  in  New  York  we  send  our  children  to  schools  having 
illy  ventilated  and  poorly  lighted  rooms,  and  worse  than  all, 
very  often  absolutely  no  playgrounds,  and  we  look  for  a  crop 
of  souls! 

If  I  had  my  way  I  would  give  every  school-house  a  whole 
block  for  a  playground,  and  devote  two-thirds  of  the  time 
now  fruitlessly  spent  on  the  development  of  our  children's 
minds  to  the  development  of  their  bodies.  A  child  with  a 
good  physique  may  have  a  good  brain  and  be  a  useful  citizen. 
A  child  with  no  physique  will  be  useless  even  if  it  has  a  good 
brain. 

However,  when  I  started  this  article,  I  had  no  idea  of 
discoursing  upon  either  evolution,  psychology,  mental  science, 
education  or  physical  culture. 

I  simply  wished  to  say  that  I  felt  myself  to  be  like  the 
bullfrog  on  the  bank  calling  on  the  little  tadpoles  in  the 
pool  to  come  out  of  the  slime  and  enjoy  the  air  and  sun- 
shine. I  know  they  can't  come  out  until  they  are  ready  to 
come,  but  before  the  tadpole  comes  out  he  must  have  the 
wish  to  come.  I  am  trying  to  inspire  my  fellow  Americans 
with  the  wish  to  get  out  of  the  Slime  of  the  Marsh  of  Poverty. 
If  I  can  show  them  the  possibility  of  another  life,  a  happier 
life,  they  will  wish  for  such  a  life.  They  will  struggle  for  it. 
They  will  vote  for  it.    The  Wish  is  Father  to  the  Deed. 

I  know  that  the  American  Voting  Tadpoles  are  now  about 
ready  to  drop  their  competitive  tails  and  put  on  their  co- 
operative legs.  They  are  physically  and  intellectually  ready 
for  such  a  change,  and  all  that  is  needed  is  to  show  them 
that  the  Bank  of  Socialism  is  at  hand  for  them  to  climb  out 
upon,  and  that  the  climbing  is  easy.  Of  course,  as  the 
waters  are  dried  up  by  the  fierce  blasts  of  monopoly,  there 
is  coming  a  time  when  these  Voting  Tadpoles  will  be  forced 
to  come  out  in  the  free  air  of  Socialism,  for  if  they  wait  too 
long  there  may  be  such  a  sudden  drying  up  of  the  puddles 
that  some  of  them  will  perish  in  the  mud  before  they  learn 
how  to  live  in  the  air. 

It  is  my  mission  to  get  them  out  of  the  pool  and  into  the 
air,  before  the  water  goes  down  so  far  that  many  are  mired 
and  perish. 


122  Wilshire   Editorials. 


MUNICIPAL  OWNERSHIP— ITS  MEANING. 

MUNICIPAL  ownership  is  admittedly  the  political 
question  of  the  hour,  and  the  problem  our  politicians 
are  now  bothering  their  heads  about  is  whether  it  is 
destined  to  be  the  question  of  the  future,  or  will  it,  like  the 
silver  issue,  burn  fiercely  for  a  while  and  then  die  out  with- 
out a  flicker  left  to  remind  us  of  its  existence. 

For  years  prior  to  1896  the  politicians  of  both  parties 
were  flirting  with  free  silver.  The  good  or  bad  of  the  free 
coinage  of  silver  was  not  a  question  with  them.  Free  silver 
was  popular  with  many  of  the  people,  and  as  the  advocacy  of 
it  seemed  so  remotely  connected  with  any  possibility  of  reali- 
zation, those  against  silver  did  not  take  the  advocacy  of  it 
seriously  enough  to  deny  their  votes  to  its  advocates. 

Advocating  free  silver  was  all  to  the  good  for  the  politician 
until,  at  last,  the  nomination  of  Bryan  upon  the  free-silver 
platform  adopted  by  the  Democratic  party  suddenly  made 
silver  a  living  issue.  The  politicians  were  then  forced  to 
reverse  their  positions,  for  a  man  could  no  longer  fervidly 
declare  himself  for  free  silver  and  take  the  chance  that  the 
sincerity  of  his  sentiments  would  never  be  put  to  the  test. 
It  became  evident  to  all  that  unless  the  most  strenuous  work 
was  done  the  Democrats  would  win  and  the  country  go  upon 
a  silver  basis.  However,  the  strenuous  work  was  done,  as 
we  all  know,  most  of  the  politicians  eating  their  words 
wherein  they  had  declared  fealty  to  silver,  and  becoming 
earnest  advocates  of  "honest  money/'  It  may  be  remem- 
bered that  President  McKinley  himself,  not  so  many  years 
before,  had  cast  his  vote  in  Congress  for  free  silver.  But 
the  campaign  was  not  carried  on  upon  what  men  had  ad- 
vocated before  1896,  but  upon  what  they  advocated  in  1896. 

Municipal  ownership  as  a  political  policy  has  a  number 
of  features  not  altogether  different  from  free  silver.  Until 
recently  it  has  been  an  issue  so  remote  that  the  politicians 
felt  no  fear  in  advocating  it.  However,  like  the  free-silver 
question,  which  was  once  looked  upon  as  merely  the  dream- 


Municipal  Ownership — Its  Meaning.  123 

ing  of  faddists,  it  has  all  at  once  become  the  active  political 
issue  of  the  day,  but,  unlike  free  silver,  it  has  so  much  the 
stronger  economic  basis,  that  the  hostility  of  the  larger  capi- 
talists cannot  defeat  it  by  an  array  of  statistics  and  appeals 
to  sound  common  sense  and  "strenuous  work/'  such  as  were 
found  so  effective  in  the  Bryan  campaign  of  1896. 

Now  that  the  silver  fever  is  dead  and  passed  away,  most 
of  its  advocates  will  usually  admit  that  it  was  really  an 
economic  heresy,  and  an  extremely  fortunate  thing  for  the 
country  that  a  Mark  Hanna  was  at  hand  with  his  general- 
ship and  his  immense  contributions  from  the  Trusts  in  hand 
to  show  the  nation  the  errors  of  sixteen  to  one  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  defeating  Bryan. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  most  of  the  old  free-silver  shouters 
are  in  line  for  municipal  ownership.  The  explanation  of 
the  connection  between  free  silver  and  municipal  ownership 
is  found  in  the  fact  that  there  is  a  tendency  for  a  political 
party  to  form  in  this  country  as  representative  of  the  moder- 
ately well-to-do-people  as  against  the  very  rich. 

The  free  coinage  of  silver  was  an  attempt  of  the  poorer 
classes  to  put  themselves  more  upon  an  economic  equality 
with  the  richer  classes,  and  the  only  reason  it  has  been 
abandoned  is  that  it  was  recognized  to  be  a  futile  method, 
an  attempting  to  raise  oneself  by  one's  bootstraps. 

It  was  not  an  impossible  task  to  show  the  American  voter 
that  as  long  as  Mr.  Rockefeller  owned  the  oil  refineries,  and 
Mr.  Vanderbilt  owned  the  railways,  and  Mr.  Belmont  owned 
the  street  cars,  and  as  long  as  the  American  voter  himself 
owned  practically  nothing,  no  matter  whether  his  wages  were 
paid  in  silver  or  in  gold,  he  was  sure  to  be  rapidly  separated 
from  his  money  whenever  he  bought  oil  or  rode  on  a  rail- 
way or  street  car. 

Before  1896  there  were  many  men  who  had  a  kind  of  a 
hazy  idea  that  some  sort  of  juggling  with  the  medium  of 
exchange  would  institute  a  millennium,  wherein  the  common 
people  would  have  all  the  comforts  of  life  and  some  of  the 
luxuries,  while  at  the  same  time  the  rich  people  would  not 
only  have  all  they  have  to-day,  but  more  too.  The  Repub- 
lican party  and  Mr.  Hanna  forever  dissipated  all  such  crude 
ideas.  The  people  generally  now  see  that  there  is  but  one 
earth,  and  that  if  Rockefeller  owns  it,  the  other  fellow  can- 


124  Wilshire   Editorials. 

not  own  it,  any  more  than  the  baby  can  have  his  cake  and 
eat  it  too.  However,  while  there  is  a  pretty  fair  knowledge 
of  this  very  elementary  proposition,  the  impossibility  of  get- 
ting the  earth  away  from  Mr.  Rockefeller  by  any  commercial 
method  is  so  palpable,  and  the  possibility  of  taking  it  away 
from  him  by  any  political  method  appears  so  dangerous  that 
the  people  are  rather  in  despair  as  to  getting  a  better  share 
of  wealth.  Rockefeller  certainly  does  not  spend  the  half,  or 
even  a  tenth,  of  his  income;  in  fact,  he  cannot  spend  it, 
and  no  one  could  spend  a  hundred  million  a  year,  and  as 
long  as  he  is  "saving"  up  so  many  millions  a  year,  there  is 
no  hope  of  getting  or  of  his  losing  his  wealth.  The  old 
theory  of  the  decentralization  of  wealth  by  waste  and  ex- 
travagance does  not  apply  to  such  fortunes  as  Rockefeller's. 

As  for  his  losing  it  by  investing  in  foolish  ventures,  that, 
too,  is  impossible.  First,  because  with  his  income  of  a  hun- 
dred millions  a  year  he  can  afford  to  lose  tens  of  millions 
annually  and  still  have  millions  left  to  add  to  his  capital. 
Secondly,  the  investment  of  his  surplus  is  in  the  hands  of 
his  own  staff  of  experts,  who  go  about  the  matter  so  scienti- 
fically and  mathematically — taking  no  chances  and  nothing 
for  granted — that  where  a  poorer  man  will  find  it  cheaper 
to  forego  investigation  and  chance  a  loss,  with  Rockefeller, 
such  is  the  magnitude  of  his  investments,  that  he  can  always 
afford  such  a  careful  investigation  of  every  proposed  invest- 
ment that  a  loss  is  practically  impossible.  And  what  is  said 
regarding  Rockefeller  applies  in  only  a  slightly  minor  degree 
to  many  others  of  our  larger  capitalists.  Then,  again,  many 
of  the  smaller  capitalists  invest  their  savings  co-operatively, 
so  to  speak,  in  a  trust  company,  which,  making  large  invest- 
ments, can  afford  to  apply  the  Rockefeller  method  of  scrutiny 
to  its  ventures,  thus  giving  to  the  small  capitalist  something 
of  the  safety  enjoyed  by  Mr.  Rockefeller. 

It  is  evident  that  by  no  commercial  methods  now  prevail- 
ing will  the  people  ever  see  Rockefeller  &  Co.  lose  their  grip 
on  the  wealth  of  the  country. 

When  a  political  method  to  effect  a  fairer  distribution  of 
wealth  is  suggested  without  any  specific  details,  the  ordinary 
citizen  has  a  horrid  vision  of  the  country  having  fallen  into 
the  hands  of  a  mob,  and  a  holiday  set  when  all  the  property 
of  the  rich  will  be  divided  up  among  the  poor. 


Municipal  Ownership — Its  Meaning.  125 

He  not  only  knows  that  any  such  division  would  be  futile, 
inasmuch  as  it  would  not  be  many  years  before  Rockefeller 
or  somebody  worse  would  have  all  the  money  again,  but  he 
also  objects  to  throwing  his  own  wealth  into  the  pile  with 
no  certainty  of  getting  back  in  the  grand  division  as  much 
as  he  is  now  in  possession  of. 

Thus,  while  there  is  certainly  a  general  desire  for  a  better 
distribution  of  wealth,  still  the  method  of  obtaining  it  seems 
so  impossible  that  the  desire  has  not  as  yet  come  into  the 
realm  of  practical  politics.  Free  silver,  as  said  before,  had 
its  run  of  popularity  because  of  this  underlying  feeling  of 
the  people  that  something  should  be  done  to  establish  more 
of  an  economic  equality. 

Now,  while  it  can  be  easily  shown  that  municipal  owner- 
ship is  unquestionably  a  very  important  step  toward  an 
equalization  of  economic  opportunity,  it  is  doubtful  if  its 
popularity  as  a  movement  can  be  rightly  ascribed  to  any 
definite  knowledge  on  the  part  of  its  advocates  to  this  effect. 

In  fact,  a  great  many  of  them — such  as  Judge  Dunne,  of 
Chicago,  and  Mayor  Johnson,  of  Cleveland,  would  no  doubt 
attempt  to  deny  it,  or,  admitting  it,  would  minimize  it. 

But  that  such  is  really  the  truth  regarding  municipal 
ownership  can  be  seen  by  a  moment's  reflection. 

Now,  when  we  speak  of  a  great  capitalist  like  Rockefeller 
owning  the  earth,  what  do  we  really  mean?  We  mean  he 
owns  some  land,  some  railways,  some  oil  refineries,  some 
street-car  lines,  etc.  Or,  rather,  we  mean  he  has  large 
amounts  of  stock  in  certain  corporations  which  own  such 
properties. 

If  the  city  of  Chicago  buys  the  street-car  lines  from  Mr. 
Rockefeller,  it  certainly  is  self-evident  that  each  and  every 
citizen  of  Chicago  has  acquired  by  that  operation  a  share  with 
his  fellow  citizens  in  the  ownership  and  management  of  a 
property  where  formerly  he  had  neither  ownership  nor  di- 
rection. 

There  will  have  unquestionably  been  a  transfer  of  wealth 
and  power  from  Rockefeller  to  himself,  and,  although  the 
citizen  may  hardly  realize  the  import  of  the  transaction, 
there  is  little  doubt  but  that  Mr.  Rockefeller  understands  it, 
and  very  thoroughly,  too. 

There  has  been  no  confiscation  of  the  street-car  line,  for 


126  Wilshirb   Editorials. 

Mr.  Rockefeller  will  have  been  paid  full  value  in  money  or 
bonds  for  his  property,  but  the  fact  remains  that  the  property 
itself  has  had  a  change  of  ownership  from  him  to  the  public. 

It  might  here  be  remarked  en  passant  that  the  changing 
of  the  coinage  from  gold  to  silver  would  have  accomplished 
no  such  change  of  ownership  of  property,  and  as  it  is  this 
latent  desire  of  the  people  to  equalize  the  ownership  of  prop- 
erty that  is,  in  my  estimation,  forming  the  basic  impulse  of 
the  movement  for  public  ownership,  I  therefore  see  for  it  a 
great  and  growing  future  success  where  the  free-silver  move- 
ment met  with  dismal  failure.  However,  while  this  vague 
desire  of  the  people  for  economic  equality  is  the  power  behind 
the  municipal  ownership  movement,  still  I  would  be  the  last 
to  deny  that  there  are  certain  superficial  conditions  connected 
with  the  private  ownership  of  public  utilities  which  have 
given  municipal  ownership  its  present  importance. 

In  the  first  place,  the  bad  service  rendered  by  the  private 
corporation  has  been  a  powerful  stimulus  to  the  desire  for 
a  change. 

When  Yerkes  said,  "The  dividends  are  in  the  straps,"  he 
gave  us  the  whole  theory  of  private  ownership  of  street-car 
lines.  It  is  not  to  serve  the  public  that  the  private  corpora- 
tion was  formed,  but  to  make  dividends  for  the  private 
stockholders.  If  one  car  can  be  used  to  carry  a  double  load 
by  the  simple  expedient  of  making  half  of  the  occupants 
stand  up  and  hang  on  to  straps,  then  why  should  money  be 
wasted  in  buying  more  cars  and  paying  wages  to  two  con- 
ductors and  two  motormen  instead  of  to  one? 

If  people  must  have  water,  anyway,  pure  or  impure,  then 
why  waste  money  upon  a  filtration  plant,  which  may  save 
lives  from  typhoid,  but  will  never  increase  the  profits  of 
the  private  corporations  owning  the  water  works? 

The  water  works  were  not  built  by  the  private  company 
to  furnish  pure  water,  but  to  pay  dividends. 

Every  organism  must  obey  the  fundamental  law  of  its 
existence.  The  fundamental  law  of  a  private  corporation  is 
to  develop  profits,  while  the  fundamental  law  of  a  public 
corporation  is  to  develop  life. 

When  the  water  works  are  privately  owned  profits  come 
first,  and  when  the  works  are  publicly  owned  pure  water  and 
good  health  come  first.    And  this  law  of  the  private  corpora- 


Municipal  Ownership — Its  Meaning.  127 

tion  holds  good  even  when  the  stockholders  are  of  the  greatest 
virtue  and  respectability. 

For  instance,  take  the  following  case  of  private  ownership 
of  water  in  Ithaca,  New  York,  given  by  Samuel  Hopkins 
Adams,  in  a  recent  number  of  McClure's  Magazine: 

For  two  years,  in  Ithaca,  in  1903,  the  water  had  been  so 
obviously  unfit  to  drink  that  the  water  company,  a  private 
enterprise,  was  constantly  in  receipt  of  complaints  from  the 
local  board  of  health  and  from  private  citizens.  Its  contract 
called  for  water  free  from  disease-producing  organisms;  the 
State  has  required  reasonable  guardianship  of  its  water-shed. 
Contract  and  law  seem  to  have  been  matters  of  equal  indif- 
ference to  the  corporation.  As  subsequent  testimony  showed 
— after  the  tragedy  was  over — the  watershed  which  supplied 
the  city  was  lined  with  pig-styes,  manure  piles,  garbage  heaps, 
cattle  pen6  and  outhouses,  many  of  them  discharging  their 
contents,  with  only  a  few  yards'  flow,  direct  into  Six-Mile 
Creek,  or  the  streams  that  supplied  it.  Whosoever  reads  the 
evidence  adduced  at  the  investigation  needs  to  have  a  strong 
stomach.  For  some  years  intestinal  diseases  and  "enteric 
fever,"  also  called  "Ithaca  fever" — another  phase  of  the  polite 
fiction  that  we  have  found  in  Cleveland — had  been  common. 
In  the  winter  of  1902-1903  the  water  company  was  aroused 
to  action  and  began  work  upon  a  dam  preparatory  to  installing 
a  filtration  plant.  It  was  just  a  trifle  too  late.  Whether 
from  a  little  group  of  shanties  back  of  Six-Mile  Creek, 
which  had  been  throwing  slops  from  the  sick  rooms  of  several 
typhoid  patients  into  the  stream  emptying  close  to  the  in- 
take, or  from  the  Italians  employed  on  the  dam  who  estab- 
lished their  sinks  within  a  few  yards  of  the  bank — an 
illuminating  instance  of  the  kind  of  protection  afforded  by 
the  water  company — the  fever  appeared  in  epidemic  form 
in  the  middle  of  January,  1903.  By  the  time  the  disease 
had  run  its  course,  there  were  1,380  known  cases  out  of  a 
population  of  15,800;  more  than  one  to  every  dozen  in- 
habitants. Happily,  the  fever  was  not  of  the  most  virulent 
type;  only  about  eight  per  cent  of  the  reported  cases  died. 
But  even  with  that  low  rate  the  mortality  reached  the  ap- 
palling ratio  of  nearly  725  per  100,000. 

Early  in  this  trouble  Cornell  University  assumed  a  promi- 
nent part  in  the  management  of  affairs.     Fortunately,  the 


128  Wilshire   Editorials. 

water  of  the  campus,  supplied  by  a  separate  system,  was  not 
contaminated,  though  it  was  far  from  clear;  so  that  among 
those  students  who  used  the  campus  water  exclusively  there 
were  no  cases.  Only  a  small  part  of  the  student  body,  how- 
ever, lives  on  the  college  grounds.  The  rest  are  scattered 
among  them.  The  disease  early  appeared  among  them. 
Therefore,  it  was  only  natural  that  President  Schurman  and 
the  trustees  of  the  university  should  have  taken  an  active 
interest.  Unhappily  this  took  the  form  of  minimizing  the 
peril,  a  policy  which  may  well  have  cost  a  number  of  lives. 
It  is  but  fair  to  the  university  authorities  to  say  that  at  this 
time  they  utterly  failed  to  appreciate  the  gravity  of  the  situ- 
ation. While  the  health  authorities  were  warning  the  public 
in  terms  which  seemed  to  the  university  "sensational,"  there 
emanated  from  Cornell  reassuring  statements.  The  attitude 
of  the  institution  was,  frankly,  that  there  was  no  great 
danger.  It  strove  to  allay  the  rising  panic,  "in  the  interests 
of  the  college,"  just  as  Cleveland,  St.  Louis  and  other  cities 
have  kept  down  their  typhoid  rates  "for  the  good  of  the 
city";  but  with  this  difference  that  the  institution  must  be 
credited  with  insistence  upon  the  utmost  precautions. 

In  the  latter  part  of  February  the  State  Board  of  Health 
looked  into  the  situation  at  Ithaca,  and  its  official  head  was 
closeted  for  some  time  with  President  Schurman.  Imme- 
diately after  this  conference  the  following  statement  was 
given  out  in  pamphlet  form  from  the  president's  office: 

"Dr.  Daniel  Lewis,  the  State  Commissioner  of  Health,  who 
is  here  to-day,  after  having  studied  the  situation  carefully 
from  every  side,  makes  the  statement  that  the  plans  which 
are  already  in  operation,  and  which  are  this  day  being  ex- 
tended by  the  city  authorities,  make  it  perfectly  safe  for  any- 
one to  return  to  Ithaca  who  so  desires." 

At  this  time  there  were  400  to  500  fever  cases  in  the  city; 
new  cases  were  appearing  in  large  numbers  every  day,  and 
every  weary  and  overworked  physician  in  the  place  knew  that 
never  had  the  disease  been  less  under  control.  Some  miscon- 
ception seems  to  have  entered  into  the  conference  between 
Dr.  Schurman  and  Dr.  Lewis,  for,  as  soon  as  the  optimistic 
pamphlet  appeared,  the  local  board  of  health  wired  the  State 
Commissioner,  asking  if  he  were  willing  to  go  on  record  as 
saying  that  students  might  safely  return  to  town.    Response 


Municipal  Ownership — Its  Meaning.  129 

came  promptly;  he  was  not.  Until  certain  measures  should 
have  been  taken  he  would  not  regard  it  as  safe.  Thereupon 
the  pamphlet  was  withdrawn  from  circulation  and  another 
substituted. 

The  Cornell  Infirmary,  to  which  many  of  the  students  were 
taken,  was  under  lay  management.  There  seems  to  have 
been  little  regard  for  professional  opinion.  One  member 
of  the  medical  faculty  of  Cornell  resigned  from  the  manag- 
ing committee  because  "the  opinions  of  a  physician  were  not 
worthy  of  the  consideration  of  the  laymen  of  the  committee." 
Another  was  rebuked  in  writing  because  he  took  a  member 
of  the  New  York  Cornell  medical  faculty  to  the  hospital, 
which  seems,  curiously  enough,  to  be  against  the  rules.  At 
a  time  when  all  the  obtainable  aid  was  necessary,  the  medical 
faculty  was,  as  far  as  possible,  excluded  from  any  direction 
of  the  infirmary.     The  result: 

Percentage  of  deaths  to  cases  among  students  treated  at 
the  Cornell  Infirmary,  11.5;  percentage  of  deaths  to  cases 
among  students  treated  at  the  City  Hospital,  6.7. 

Conditions  of  overcrowding  and  the  class  of  patients  con- 
sidered were  the  same.  That  nearly  seventy-five  per  cent 
more  cases  were  lost  in  the  Cornell  institution  than  in  the 
City  Hospital  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  the  measure  of  dif- 
ference between  efficient  and  inefficient  management.  Finally, 
the  death-rate  of  the  infirmary  was  one  and  one-half  per 
cent  higher  than  that  of  outside  non-hospital  treatment. 
That  is,  putting  it  barely,  it  was  somewhat  better  not  to  go 
to  a  hospital  at  all  than  to  trust  to  the  management  of  the 
well-meaning  trustees  of  the  university  institution. 

For  six  weeks  the  epidemic  raged;  then  subsided,  though 
its  effects  were  felt  far  into  the  summer.  The  stricken  town 
had  time  to  consider.  Investigation  followed.  As  I  have 
said,  the  testimony  does  not  make  pleasant  reading.  It 
proved,  with  iterated  and  heaped-up  evidence,  that  the  water 
company  was  either  culpably  ignorant  or  culpably  negligent 
of  the  watershed  which  had  been  intrusted  to  its  care.  On 
my  visit  to  Ithaca  I  asked  several  representative  citizens 
what  was  done  with  the  responsible  managers  of  the  com- 
pany.    They  seemed  surprised. 

"Nothing,"  they  said. 

"Was  no  attempt  made  to  call  them  to  account?" 


130  Wilshire    Editorials. 

"Certainly  not." 

"Weren't  they  even  indicted?" 

"Indicted?  Why,  the  very  best  people  in  town  were  in 
that  water  company.*  Our  leading  financiers,  merchants, 
church  members,  etc."  (The  list  is  a  familiar  one;  it's  the 
same  kind  of  list  that  one  finds  owning  the  disease-breeding 
tenements  in  Chicago,  New  York  and  Philadelphia.) 

Punishment  did  follow  the  crime,  however.  But  not  the 
crime  of  poisoning  the  water,  the  crime  of  honestly  attempt- 
ing to  let  people  know  the  truth  of  their  peril.  A  member 
of  the  faculty  of  Cornell  University  printed  in  the  local  paper 
which  he  owned  the  facts  of  the  typhoid  epidemic.  Warned 
that  he  was  jeopardizing  his  university  interest  by  this  course, 
that  the  policy  of  the  university  "deprecated  sensational  re- 
ports tending  to  incite  alarm,"  he  replied  that  the  policy 
of  his  paper  was  to  tell  the  truth  as  it  appeared.  After  the 
scourge  had  passed  this  man  found  himself  persona  non  grata 
with  the  controlling  interests  of  the  institution.  Owing  to 
the  unusual  success  of  his  department,  he  was  in  line  for  a 
full  professorship.  Now  he  learned  that  as  long  as  he  re- 
mained at  the  head  of  the  department  it  would  continue  to 
be  merely  an  assistant  professor's  department.     He  resigned. 

One  of  the  Ithaca  physicians  had  for  years  been  connected 
with  Cornell  University  on  the  medical  side.  When  Cornell 
began  its  policy  of  optimism  at  the  height  of  the  epidemic, 
this  physician  took  the  other  side.  Optimism  seemed  to  him 
out  of  place  under  the  circumstances.  He  supported  the 
policy  of  the  local  health  board.  Despite  warnings  he  con- 
tinued to  hold  to  his  course.  Toward  the  end  of  the  year 
his  friends  learned  that  he  need  not  expect  a  reappointment 
to  the  university  staff.  To  save  himself  humiliation  he  re- 
signed. Other  cases  might  be  cited  where  the  outspoken 
were   penalized  socially,   commercially  and   even  politically. 

Ithaca  has  learned  its  lesson  now;  witness  its  vote  of 
1,335  for  municipal  ownership.  Cornell  has  its  own  filtration 
plant,  which  bears  Carnegie's  name,  in  agreeable  variation 
to  the  long  line  of  libraries. 

*  The  secretary  and  treasurer  of  Cornell  University  was  at  that 
time  a  director  of  the  water  company;  several  of  the  university 
trustees  had  been  directors  up  to  within  a  short  time,  and  their 
families  were  still  financially  interested  in  the  company. 


Municipal  Ownership — Its  Meaning.  131 

I  give  the  case  of  Ithaca  at  length  because  it  must  at  once 
be  admitted,  if  a  place  with  as  high  a  standard  of  intelligence 
as  that  university  city  finds  it  impossible  to  get  pure  water 
with  private  ownership,  how  much  more  impossible  must  it 
be  for  our  large  cities  with  a  much  lower  standard  of  in- 
telligence ? 

The  case  of  Ithaca  is  also  illustrative  of  the  demoraliza- 
tion of  university  life  itself  as  the  result  of  the  private  owner- 
ship of  Cornell  University.  It  is  true  that  Cornell  is  not 
operated  for  the  sake  of  profit,  but  it  is  true,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  such  was  the  fear  of  the  diminution  of  prestige 
and  income  owing  to  the  students  leaving  if  they  should  gain 
knowledge  of  a  bad  water  supply,  that  President  Schurman 
was  willing  to  suppress  the  information  and  fatally  risk  the 
lives  of  his  students. 

The  public  is  not  only  dissatisfied  with  private  ownership 
of  public  utilities,  because  of  the  bad  service  rendered,  but 
it  has  another  and  a  greater  and  deeper  grievance — namely, 
the  corruption  of  public  officials  by  the  private  corporations. 

It  is  notorious  that  practically  all  our  larger  American 
cities  are  each  in  the  control  of  a  boss  who  derives  his  political 
power  from  the  private  corporations  which  own  the  public 
utilities. 

The  boss  often  has  the  control  of  the  machinery  of  not 
only  one,  but  both  of  the  great  political  parties.  The  mayor 
and  the  aldermen  are  his  creatures.  Dependent  upon  him 
for  their  places,  the  least  infraction  of  his  wish  means  the 
loss  of  their  political  heads.  The  boss  deals  directly  with 
the  gas  company  when  it  wishes  to  lay  more  mains  or  to  do 
anything  requiring  political  consent  or  action;  a  new  fran- 
chise, for  instance.  The  same  is  true  of  the  electric  light 
company,  the  street  car  companies,  the  telephone  and  other 
companies  owning  the  public  utilities.  The  boss  directly  or 
indirectly  gets  money  from  the  corporations,  and  he  has  the 
power  not  only  of  appointment  to  the  usual  political  offices 
of  the  city,  but  also  to  the  many  positions  with  corporations. 

Boss  Cox,  for  instance,  can  get  his  man  a  place  upon  the 
police  force  of  Cincinnati,  or  a  place  as  a  street-car  conductor, 
or  a  lineman  with  the  telephone  company,  with  equal  facility. 

The  control  of  a  man's  job  means  very  nearly  the  control 
of  his  life,  and  hence  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  giving  of 


132  Wilshire   Editorials. 

so  small  a  commodity  as  one's  vote  to  the  boss  in  exchange 
for  the  job  is  a  very  ordinary  and  usual  transaction  with 
many  thousands  of  our  fellow  American  citizens. 

The  private  corporations  are  under  compulsion  to  play 
politics  as  much  in  order  to  prevent  themselves  being  black- 
mailed as  they  are  to  gain  illegal  rights. 

Buying  the  good  graces  of  the  boss  is  never,  of  course, 
entered  upon  the  books  of  a  corporation  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  uninitiated  would  know  what  the  money  went  for. 
Legal  expense  is  a  broad,  elastic  term  that  can  cover  all  such 
underground  expense. 

While  the  facts  of  corruption  by  our  private  corporations 
are  not  denied,  the  opponents  of  municipal  ownership  reply 
that  if  the  public  officials  of  to-day  are  so  easily  corrupted, 
what  hope  is  there  in  putting  still  more  power  into  their 
hands?  They  forget  that  the  source  of  the  corruption  is 
in  the  private  ownership  of  public  utilities,  and  the  more  of 
these  utilities  that  are  municipalized,  the  more  will  the  cor- 
rupting stream  be  narrowed.  When  one  impure  rivulet  poi- 
sons a  great  river,  and  gives  a  city  an  epidemic  of  typhoid 
fever,  it  is  no  argument  against  purifying  the  other  con- 
tributory rivulets,  but  is  merely  an  argument  for  the  purify- 
ing of  the  single  impure  rivulet,  so  when  we  find,  notwith- 
standing the  municipal  ownership  of  certain  utilities,  that 
corruption  still  continues,  our  remedy  is  not  to  stop  our 
work,  but  to  still  further  pursue  our  purifying  process. 

For  instance,  C.  E.  Russell,  in  Everybody's  Magazine,  de- 
clares that  the  Beef  Trust  in  Chicago  to-day  steals  thousands 
of  gallons  from  the  city  watermains  without  making  any 
payment.  It  has  bribed  the  city  officials  to  wink  at  the 
stealing.  This  state  of  affairs  certainly  shows  a  state  of 
corruption  in  Chicago  waterworks,  notwithstanding  muni- 
cipal ownership.     But  who  does  the  corrupting? 

Is  it  not  owing  to  the  private  ownership  of  the  other 
public  utilities,  such  as  the  gasworks,  the  street  cars,  the 
telephones,  and  particularly  the  stock  yards? 

In  many  European  cities  every  one  of  these  public  utilities 
is  municipally  owned,  so  to  propose  the  municipal  ownership 
of  such  utilities  by  our  American  cities  is  proposing  no  un- 
tried experiment.  The  argument  regarding  the  saving  to 
the  individual  as  the  result  of  public  ownership,  I  will  not 


Municipal  Ownership — Its  Meaning.  133 

dwell  upon  further  than  to  say  that,  universally  wherever 
there  is  municipal  ownership,  the  price  of  gas,  of  water,  of 
telephones,  of  street-car  transportation,  etc.,  is  lower  than 
under  private  ownership,  and  the  service  is  always  better. 
But  I  must  return  to  my  original  argument  for  prophesying 
that  municipal  ownership  is  sure  to  be  the  next  great  and 
successful  political  movement  in  the  United  States;  namely, 
because  it  tends  to  effect  a  wider  and  more  equitable  distri- 
bution of  the  wealth  of  the  country. 

Man  is  a  land  animal,  and  land  is  his  first  requisite  for 
existence.  Next  he  must  have  the  tools  wherewith  to  work 
the  land. 

In  primitive  days,  man's  tools  were  primitive.  He  had  a 
pine  knot  for  his  gasworks,  he  had  a  gourd  for  his  water- 
works, he  had  his  donkey  for  his  street  car,  he  had  his  own 
knife  and  his  own  back  yard  for  his  stock  yards. 

These  tools  were  his  own,  and  he  could  use  them  without 
asking  any  man's  or  any  trust's  permission.  Land  was  his 
for  the  walking  to  the  westward  a  few  miles.  The  American 
then  was  indeed  a  free  man,  who  owed  no  man  obeisance. 
But  to-day,  if  he  would  use  land,  he  must  first  ask  permis- 
sion of  an  Astor;  if  he  would  have  light  and  heat,  he  must 
ask  permission  of  a  Rockefeller;  if  he  would  go  from  place 
to  place,  he  must  bend  the  knee  to  a  Vanderbilt,  and  so  on, 
and  so  on. 

Man  has  always  resented  serfdom,  his  eternal  struggle  has 
been  for  liberty,  and  so  to-day  the  struggle  is  still  for  liberty ; 
for  economic  liberty;  for  liberty  to  use  the  earth,  to  use  the 
necessary  tools  to  produce  wealth,  without  asking  the  leave 
of  an  owner. 

Municipal  ownership  to  the  extent  that  it  gives  men  the 
ownership  of  certain  tools — to  wit,  waterworks,  gasworks, 
street  cars,  telephones,  etc. — frees  man  from  bending  the 
knee  to  any  private  owners  thereof,  and  to  that  extent  is 
an  onward  step  to  the  complete  emancipation  of  man  from 
thraldom  to  man,  from  thraldom  to  poverty. 

It  is  because  it  is  such  a  forward  step  that  it  is  bound 
to  be  made,  (for  the  course  of  man  has  ever  been  onward. 
But,  after  all,  it  must  always  be  remembered  that  it  is  but 
a  step  to  the  goal  and  not  the  goal  itself  of  complete  economic 
freedom  and  of  the  abolition  of  poverty. 


134  Wilshire   Editorials. 


VIRCHOW'S  CELL  THEORY 

THE  Trust  is  at  once  a  normal  and  an  abnormal  devel- 
opment accordingly  as  we  may  look  upon  it. 
It  is  abnormal  to  the  social  system  if  we  look  upon 
it  as  a  cancer  eating  out  the  heart  of  society,  abstracting 
to  itself  wealth  that  should  go  to  all. 

It  is  normal  if  we  look  upon  it  as  the  natural  evolution 
of  a  system  of  competition  which  gives  to  the  greedy  rather 
than  the  needy. 

The  Trust  is  the  most  perfect  engine  that  greed  has  ever 
devised,  and  as  we  have  been  striving  to  develop  the  best 
machine  to  satisfy  the  greedy  it  is  no  wonder  that  we  have 
finally  invented  an  instrument  that  operates  so  automatically 
and  with  such  intelligence  that  we  are  terrified  at  our 
Frankenstein  and  now  seek  its  destruction. 

However,  it  is  perfectly  natural  for  a  man  to  be  greedy 
when  in  an  environment  that  threatens  him  with  starvation 
if  he  does  not  grab.  The  most  perfect-mannered  man  in  the 
world  becomes  a  hog  if  failure  to  be  a  hog  means  death. 

Life  is  merely  adaptation  to  environment.  A  cell  in  the 
body  is  bruised  and  bruised  again;  it  demands  more  nutri- 
ment to  restore  its  equilibrium.  At  first  the  result  is  a 
simple  inflammation;  then,  as  the  bruising  takes  place  again 
and  again  upon  the  inflamed  spot,  the  inflammation  finally 
becomes  chronic.  Let  the  spot  be  bruised  again  and  it  may 
become  cancer.  The  original  cell  that  started  out  merely 
to  protect  itself  by  taking  a  little  extra  blood  while  it  was 
recovering  from  a  slight  temporary  mishap  has  now  become 
the  militant  and  malignant  cancer  cell  threatening  the  whole 
body.     The  friend  has  become  a  deadly  foe. 

Similarly  Rockefeller  started  out  as  a  simple  business 
man  trying  to  save  a  few  dollars  to  protect  himself  against 
old  age.  He  got  the  habit  of  saving  money.  At  the  same 
time  he  was  surrounded  by  a  sea  of  fiery,  deadly  competitors. 
He  made  deeper  the  channels  which  guided  the  protecting 
dollars  to  his  savings  bank.     More  and  more  money  came 


Virchow's  Cell  Theory.  135 

and  at  the  same  time  more  and  more  was  the  need  of  money 
to  protect  himself  from  powerful  competitors.  Finally  came 
the  Trust,  and  now  money  flows  to  him  in  a  stream  of  a  vol- 
ume quite  undreamt  of  even  by  Rockefeller,  and  he  has 
neither  the  will  nor  the  power  to  stop  the  flow. 

Rockefeller  was  once  a  healthy  cell  of  our  industrial  organ- 
ism; that  he  has  become  an  abnormal  one  is  not  Rockefeller's 
fault;  it  is  owing  to  the  unhealthy  state  of  our  industrial 
organism.  To  cure  Rockefeller  we  must  not  apply  the  rem- 
edy to  him  individually,  as  would  the  Republicans  and 
Democrats.    We  must  apply  it  to  society. 

To  cure  a  boil  we  do  not  have  the  best  effect  by  treating 
the  boil.  We  seek  to  build  up  a  debilitated  system  of  which 
the  boil  is  the  symptom.  Rockefeller  is  an  effect,  not  a 
cause.  Prof.  Virchow  was  the  originator  of  the  modern 
theory  of  disease.  His  views  have  been  briefly  stated  by 
Prof.  Legge  as  follows: 

Until  Virchow's  time  it  seemed  to  have  been  thought 
that  disease  was  caused  by  some  foreign  substance  inimical 
to  life,  seating  itself  within  the  tissues  of  the  body,  and 
thence  proceeding  to  conquer  by  degrees  the  whole  organ- 
ism. But  Virchow  showed  that  the  process  had  been  mis- 
interpreted. 

The  diseased  structures  of  the  body,  he  affirmed,  con- 
sisted of  cells  like  the  healthy  or  undiseased,  and  these 
cells  must  once  have  sprung,  as  do  all  cells,  from  others. 
And  as  those  parent  cells  can  have,  in  their  turn,  no  other 
origin  than  the  original  cell  out  of  which  the  whole 
structure  develops,  it  follows  that  the  cells  of  diseased 
tissues  must  have  developed  in  the  normal  way  from 
the  cells  of  the  healthy  tissues,  "driven,"  as  Lord  Lister 
has  said  in  this  connection,  to  abnormal  development  by 
injurious  agencies. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  whole  theory  of  disease  is  pushed 
further  back,  and  that  we  must  look  for  its  origin,  not  in 
the  diseased  structure,  but  in  the  agency  which  caused 
the  cells  of  the  diseased  structure  to  develop  in  an  ab- 
normal way. 

Let  us  see,  for  example,  how  this  explains  the  morbid 
process  called  inflammation.     It  was  once  held  that  this 


136  Wilshire   Editorials. 

in  itself  was  a  diseased  condition  of  the  part  affected, 
and  that  the  appropriate  remedy  was,  as  was  said,  to 
"reduce  the  inflammation  by  treating  the  local  symptoms." 
But  Virchow  showed  that  the  efficient  cause  must  be  an 
irritation  of  the  local  cells,  which  causes  them,  as  does  all 
irritation,  to  increase  their  own  nutrition  by  subtracting 
from  the  blood  and  the  neighboring  tissue  a  greater  supply 
than  before  of  substance  to  be  assimilated.  Hencefor- 
ward the  congestion  of  blood  in  the  inflamed  part, 
and  the  consequent  nervous  and  vascular  disturbance,  be- 
come a  matter  of  very  small  importance  for  the  cure.  To 
find  and  remove  the  cause  of  the  irritation  of  the  cells 
is  now  the  care  of  the  pathologist,  conscious  as  he  must 
be  that  when  this  is  done,  all  local  symptoms  may  be 
trusted  to  cure  themselves. 

Just  as  it  is  the  function  of  the  scientific  physician  to  seek 
the  cause  of  inflammation  when  the  trouble  is  with  the  in- 
dividual man,  so  should  it  be  the  function  of  the  scientific 
politician  to  seek  the  cause  of  disturbance  in  the  social 
organism. 

But  it  is  not  as  hopeless  as  it  might  seem.  The  scientific 
man  is  not  essentially  different  from  the  ordinary  man.  He 
has  simply  had  his  attention  directed  to  certain  phenomena 
and  by  giving  them  careful  attention  he  has  noticed  and 
jotted  down  certain  relations  between  these  phenomena.  The 
first  relation  noticed  will  probably  be  so  very  obvious  that 
one  of  the  simplest  powers  of  observation  could  not  help 
seeing  it.  For  instance,  in  determining  the  scientific  descrip- 
tion of  a  bird  you  notice  that  it  has  two  legs ;  now  certainly 
this  fact  takes  little  powers  of  observation  to  ascertain.  To 
discover  that  it  belongs  to  an  egg-laying  species  is  but  little 
more  difficult.  To  discover  that  a  bird's  bones  are  much 
lighter  than  those  of  a  non-flying  animal  of  the  same  weight 
takes  considerably  more  powers  of  observation,  but  still  it 
does  not  indicate  anything  superhuman  in  the  observer.  The 
same  remark  applies  to  discovering  that  the  temperature  of 
a  bird's  blood  is  higher  than  that  of  a  mammal.  And  so  on 
from  step  to  step  the  patient  scientific  investigator  adds 
facts  to  facts  about  birds  and  finally  makes  out  general  laws 
for  birds  in  their  various  characteristics  which  may  seem  to 


Virchow's  Cell  Theory.  137 

require  great  ability  on  his  part,  but  which  really  takes  great 
patience  rather  more  than  great  intellect. 

A  general  view  of  the  knowledge  of  a  scientific  man  gives 
the  impression  to  the  ordinary  man  that  no  one  except  a 
genius  could  know  so  much.  But  the  scientific  man  has 
no  such  exalted  opinion  of  himself.  He  knows  only  too 
well  the  shortness  and  the  number  of  steps  by  which  he 
attained  his  eminence.  He  knows  that  it  only  took  a  plain, 
ordinary  every-day  man  to  advance  these  steps,  one  at  a  time, 
and  that  he,  the  great  scientific  man,  is  merely  the  ordinary 
man  gifted  with  patience  and  having  had  his  work  directed 
in  a  certain  direction. 

To-day  there  is  no  incentive  for  a  politician  to  have  a 
scientific  knowledge  of  economics.  To-day  knowledge  not 
only  does  not  give  him  his  place,  but  too  much  knowledge 
may  lose  it  for  him,  for  it  is  often  as  dangerous  to  know 
too  much  as  it  was  to  Galileo  in  the  middle  ages. 

When  the  church  had  charge  of  astronomy  it  was  heresy 
punishable  with  death  to  disagree  with  Ptolemy  that  the  sun 
went  round  the  earth;  therefore  the  astronomers  of  those 
days  were  not  very  particular  to  have  another  theory.  There 
was  no  demand  for  science  in  the  field  of  astronomy;  faith 
alone  was  wanted. 

To-day  we  are  conducting  our  politics  as  we  once  con- 
ducted our  astronomy,  our  chemistry,  our  medicine,  on  faith, 
not  science.  The  results  is  our  politicians  know  as  much 
about  the  science  of  politics  as  did  the  old-time  astrologers 
know  of  the  science  of  astronomy. 


138  Wilshike    Editorials. 


WHITE  COLLARS  AND  A  YELLOW  PRESS 

TO  those  not  behind  the  scenes  the  editorial  course  of 
the  Hearst  papers  seems  absolutely  without  reason. 
One  day  they  favor  one  thing  and  the  next  day  the 
opposite.  One  day  they  advocate  the  destruction  of  the 
Trusts,  and  the  next  day  the  national  ownership  of  the 
Trusts.  All  of  which  is  very  confusing.  But  when  one  re- 
members that  in  order  to  make  a  great  paper  successful  it  is 
necessary  to  have  the  backing  of  one  of  the  great  political 
parties,  a  light  is  thrown  upon  the  mystery.  Mr.  Hearst  is 
shrewd  enough  to  know  that  the  current  of  public  opinion 
in  this  country  is  rapidly  setting  toward  public  ownership 
not  only  of  municipal  utilities  but  also  of  railways  and  Trusts. 
He  also  knows  that  there  are  millions  of  people  in  this 
country  who  favor  this,  without  realizing  that  it  is  Socialistic, 
or  that  it  tends  toward  Socialism.  He  would  catch  this  class 
of  ignorant  readers  for  his  newspapers,  and  he  would  have 
them  believe  that  he  is  the  chief  and  only  exponent  of  such 
views.  If  he  should  let  them  know  that  the  platform  he 
stands  on,  in  this  particular,  is  practically  the  same  as  that 
of  the  Socialists,  he  fears  not  only  the  connection  of  his 
name  with  Socialism,  but  also  that  he  would  not  get  full 
credit  for  originating  the  views  presented  in  his  editorial 
columns. 

The  Socialist  Party  is  a  comparatively  small  one,  and 
obscure  as  yet,  and  for  Hearst  to  wind  up  his  Socialist 
editorials  with  the  advice  that  his  readers  should  vote  the 
Socialist  ticket  would  undoubtedly  alienate  from  him  the 
support  of  a  great  many  Democratic  followers  and  would 
certainly  be  entirely  inconsistent  with  his  program  of  being 
the  next  Democratic  nominee  for  President.  It  is,  therefore, 
clear  that  Hearst  is  perfectly  logical  in  his  apparently  illogical 
course  of  glorifying  theoretical  Socialism  but  damning  So- 
cialists, who  propose  to  put  it  in  practice. 

The  following  editorial  taken  from  the  "New  York  Journal" 


White  Collars  and  a  Yellow  Press.  139 

of  September  18th,  is  a  striking  corroboration  of  the  fore- 
going: 

The  Social  Democratic  Party  in  Germany  is  a  powerful 
and  splendid  proof  of  German  courage  and  independence. 

In  the  face  of  government  oppression,  in  the  face  of  mili- 
tary oppression,  in  the  face  of  aristocratic  pretensions  and 
snubs  and  sneers,  in  the  face  of  clerical  oppression — the 
Social  Democrats  of  Germany  have  built  themselves  into 
the  greatest  political  party  in  the  land,  three  millions  of 
earnest,  unselfish,  thinking  men.  This  great  body  of  the 
actual  common  people  can  be  looked  upon  only  with  respect 
and  reverence  here  in  America,  where  all  our  sympathies 
must  be  with  the  class  that  fights  imperialism. 

The  leading  Social  Democrats  of  Germany  are  great  men 
and  educated  men.  Herr  Bebel,  Herr  von  Vollmar  and  the 
other  leaders  are  men  of  unselfish  devotion,  and  at  the  same 
time  of  earnest  thought  and  thorough  education. 

The  future  of  Germany  is  in  their  hands.  They  will  solve 
the  military  and  all  other  German  questions.  In  the  mean- 
time the  army,  pride  of  the  Emperor's  heart,  is  manufactur- 
ing Social  Democrats  every  day,  catching  the  peasant  boy, 
awkward  and  ungainly,  in  his  country  village,  kicking  him 
and  cuffing  him  simultaneously  into  a  trained  soldier  and  a 
Social  Democrat  who  hates  the  laws  that  cuffed  him. 

We  wish  to-day  to  speak  of  the  statement  made  by  an 
American  Socialist  at  the  Germans'  Socialistic  Congress  at 
Dresden. 

This  individual,  alleged  to  represent  the  United  States 
Socialists,  declared  that  a  Socialistic  crisis  would  come  first 
in  America,  that  the  development  of  the  trusts  would  bring 
about  Socialism  in  this  country. 

We  cannot  express  for  the  American  Socialist  Party  the 
same  admiration  as  we  feel  for  the  Social  Democrats  of  Ger- 
many. 

'The  German  Social  Democrat  is  a  serious,  earnest  man, 
protesting  against  imperialism,  militarism,  special  privileges 
for  the  noble,  special  oppressions  for  the  people. 

What  he  asks  for,  any  decent  American  citizen  would  ask 
for,  if  he  lived  in  Germany. 

The  American  Socialist  is,  with  honorable  exceptions,  not 
to  be  classed  with  the  Social  Democrat  of  Germanv. 


140  Wilshire  Editorials. 

He  is  a  man  who  often  expresses  a  social  dissatisfaction 
based  upon  personal  failure.  He  is  very  apt  to  be  loud 
rather  than  profound.  He  is  as  a  rule  not  an  educated  man, 
and  his  demands  and  urgings  are  based  too  often  on  ignor- 
ance. 

The  statement  that  the  trusts  in  the  United  States  will 
bring  about  Socialism  in  the  United  States  is  ignorant;  it 
shows  a  lack  of  understanding  of  to-day's  problems. 

Socialism  properly  understood  ought  to  mean  the  better- 
ment of  social  conditions. 

If  Socialism  be  defined  as  the  improvement  of  social  con- 
ditions, then,  of  course,  every  good  citizen  is  a  Socialist.  For 
every  good  citizen  knows  that  social  conditions  ought  to  be 
better. 

Admitting  such  a  definition  of  Socialism,  it  may  truthfully 
be  said  that  the  trusts  will  bring  about  Socialism;  that  is  to 
say,  better  social  conditions. 

We  believe  that  industry  among  human  beings  is  destined 
to  pass  through  three  phases — the  phases  of  competition,  of 
organization,  of  emulation. 

Civilization  has  spent  thousands  of  years  in  the  competitive 
system.  Out  of  a  hundred  business  men  ninety-nine  have 
failed — one  hundred  business  enterprises  have  landed  ninety- 
nine  men  with  broken  hearts,  broken  hopes,  and  one  man 
with  money  in  his  pocket  and  a  broken  digestion. 

Competition  encouraged  the  merchant  to  sell  adulterated 
goods,  bogus  goods,  worthless  goods.  It  encouraged  him  to 
pay  his  employees  as  little  as  he  could  in  order  to  compete 
with  others  who  hired  employees,  and  to  charge  his  customers 
as  much  as  he  could. 

The  competitive  system  is  now  dying  a  slow  death. 

Already  the  system  of  organization  has  arrived  and  the 
trusts  represent  this  system. 

It  is  crude  and  selfish,  it  takes  for  a  few  big  organized 
pirates  the  enormous  sums  that  used  to  be  distributed  among 
a  great  many  little  competitive  pirates. 

But  organization,  even  under  trust  management,  is  a  step 
in  the  right  direction. 

The  trust  that  is  combining  the  nation's  industries  into  a 
few  companies  paves  the  way  certainly  and  surely  for  national 
ownership. 


White  Collars  and  a  Yellow  Press.  141 

When  one  man,  or  half  a  dozen  men,  shall  own  all  the 
railroads  of  the  United  States  there  will  be  interference 
by  the  people  sooner  or  later.  When  one  man,  or  a  few  men, 
shall  own  all  the  steel  mills,  all  the  coal  mines  and  all  the 
oil  wells,  all  the  street-car  lines — there  will  be  interference 
by  the  people  sooner  or  later. 

When  it  is  clearly  proved  that  one  man,  or  a  few  men, 
can  run  the  business  of  a  nation,  that  the  much  vaunted 
competition  is  not  the  life  of  trade  but  an  indication  of 
savagery,  then  the  people  will  say  to  the  one  man,  or  the 
few  men,  "We,  the  people,  will  own  the  business  of  the 
people,  and  not  you,  an  individual." 

In  pursuance  of  his  policy  of  not  mentioning  the  names 
of  Socialists  any  more  than  is  absolutely  necessary,  it  will  be 
noticed  in  the  first  place  that  Hearst  alludes  to  the  editor  of 
this  paper,  who  happened  to  be  the  American  delegate  at 
the  convention  referred  to,  as  "this  individual."  In  the  cable- 
gram from  Germany,  upon  which  the  editorial  was  based, 
published  in  another  column  of  the  same  issue,  however,  he 
was  forced  to  allow  the  name  Wilshire  to  appear. 

IJe__says  that  the  American  Socialists  are  not  good  enough 
to  be  classed  with  the  Socialists  of  Germany.  Whatever  Mr. 
Hearst  may  say,  it  is  certain  that  the  German  Socialists 
themselves  accept  us  American  Socialists  as  equals,  as 
brothers,  and  are  only  too  glad  to  seat  us  at  their  conven- 
tions and  extend  to  us  all  the  courtesies  customary  between 
members  of  the  same  party. 

Pursuing  his  general  policy  of  misrepresentation,  Hearst 
naturally  meets  with  the  difficulty  encountered  by  all 
imaginative  writers,  of  making  his  stories  agree  at  every 
point.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  editorial  starts  out  by  saying 
"the  statement  that  the  trusts  in  the  United  States  will 
bring  about  Socialism  in  the  United  States  is  ignorant,  and 
shows  lack  of  understanding  of  to-day's  problems."  This  is 
followed,  a  little  later  on,  by  a  statement  of  his  own  that 
"the  Trust  that  is  combining  the  nation's  industries  into  a 
few  companies,  is  paving  the  way  certainly  and  surely  for 
national  ownership ....  When  one  man  or  a  few  men  shall 
own  all  the  steel  mills,  all  the  coal  mines,  all  the  oil  wells 
and  all  the  street-car  lines,  there  will  be  interference  by  the 
people  sooner  or  later,     When  it  is  clearly  proved  that  one 


142  Wilshire  Editorials. 

man,  or  a  few  men,  can  run  the  business  of  the  nation .... 
then  the  people  will  say  to  the  one  man,  or  the  few  men, 
"We,  the  people,  will  own  the  business  of  the  people,  and  not 
you,  an  individual." 

The  distinction,  in  Mr.  Hearst's  mind,  between  the  two 
statements  seems  to  be  that  one  is  made  by  a  member  of  the 
Socialist  Party  and  the  other  is  not.  When  "this  individual" 
says  that  the  Trusts  are  paving  the  way  for  Socialism  it  is 
"ignorant,"  but  when  he  makes  the  statement  himself  it  is 
the  quintessence  of  wisdom.  For  complete  public  ownership 
is  simply  Socialism. 

Again,  he  says  that  the  Socialists  are  men  who  have  failed 
in  life,  and  who  neglect  to  wash  their  hands  or  wear  clean 
collars.  Granting  this  to  be  true  it  would  not  invalidate  the 
arguments  of  the  Socialists.  A  great  many  men  in  the 
world's  history,  who  have  not  been  noted  for  clean  collars, 
have  given  to  the  world  the  profoundest  truths.  We  do  not 
judge  of  Truth  by  the  source  from  which  it  comes.  Truth 
speaks  for  herself.  Mr.  Hearst  may  congratulate  himself 
that  we  have  passed  the  stage  where  the  truth  of  a  man's 
statement  is  determined  either  by  the  whiteness  of  his  collar 
or  the  yellowness  of  his  journal. 


Shaw's  "Super-Man."  143 


SHAW'S   "SUPER-MAN" 

BERNARD  SHAW  has  at  last  arrived.  I  speak  meta- 
phorically. Years  ago,  when  I  first  visited  London,  it 
was  in  the  beginnings  of  the  socialist  movement,  and 
Shaw  was  then  a  young  Irish  newspaper  man  finding  it  diffi- 
cult to  make  ends  meet.  However,  it  never  daunted  his  spir- 
its, and  Shaw  was  then  as  he  is  now  the  bright  particular  wit 
in  our  London  socialist  set.  We  all  recognized  his  brilliancy; 
in  fact,  Shaw  himself  recognized  it  and  joined  with  us  in  a 
general  regret  that  the  public  were  so  blind  to  it.  Not  that  ^ 
we  cared  so  much  about  Shaw's  personal  loss  in  his  failure  to 
get  recognition,  but  we  felt  that  if  he  were  recognized  then 
he  would  be  able  to  get  so  much  the  better  audience  to 
which  he  might  expound  our  and  his  socialist  views.  I  was 
not  in  great  hopes,  however,  for  I  confess  that  I  did  not 
credit  London  and  New  York  for  the  wit  shown  in  at  last 
giving  Shaw  recognition.  His  plays  were  really  too  clever,  it 
seemed  to  me,  for  them  to  be  adapted  to  a  general  audience ; 
this  quite  apart  from  whether  they  are  really  good  plays  any- 
way from  purely  the  dramatic  standpoint. 

However,  as  said,  Shaw  has  arrived,  not  only  with  his 
plays,  but  with  anything  that  he  now  may  write. 

That  he  is  using  his  pinnacle  to  disseminate  Socialism,  al- 
though after  his  own  particular  method  of  disseminating  it, 
is  unnecessary  to  state. 

Shaw  and  I  were  never  altogether  at  one  upon  our  Social- 
ism, and  I  am  not  sure  that  either  he  or  I  are  at  one  with  any 
one  in  particular. 

Shaw  never  would  grasp  the  meaning  of  the  economic  de- 
velopment of  the  Trust  in  the  United  States.  Way  back  in 
1890,  when  I  was  lecturing  in  London,  he  took  the  stage 
against  me  one  night  and  endeavored  to  show  that  I  was  all 
wrong  in  my  statement  of  America  being  industrially  in  ad- 
vance of  Europe  and  that  it  was  this  superiority  of  America 
which  had  caused  the  Trust.  Since  then  the  American  In- 
vasion of  Europe  has  convinced  Shaw  that  I  was  right  in  my 
facts,  but  I  doubt  if  he  yet  agrees  with  me  in  my  conclusions. 


y 


144  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Shaw  started  out  with  the  rest  of  the  Fabians  as  a  Utopian 
revolutionist.  The  Fabian  society  took  its  name  from  the 
Fabian  motto  to  make  ready  slowly  but  surely,  to  be  able  to 
finally  give  a  sudden  and  deadly  stroke.  The  Fabians  have 
done  with  revolutionaryism  nowadays  and  no  longer  quote 
their  motto,  although  they  still  stick  to  the  name. 

Last  summer,  when  I  was  in  London,  I  tried  to  explain  to 
Shaw  and  other  Fabians  that  the  revolution  which  I  was 
predicting  in  America  was  not  going  to  come  from  any  slow 
preparation  by  the  Socialists  and  then  finally  a  terrible  blow, 
but  that  it  was  brewing  within  the  industrial  development  of 
the  country.  That  the  nearness  of  a  climax  was  not  due  to  any 
determination  of  the  people  to  throw  off  their  yoke,  but  was 
going  to  be  due  owing  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  revolution 
in  order  to  meet  a  great  unemployed  problem. 

However,  all  my  talk  was  vain.  The  English  Fabian  classi- 
fies all  revolutions  together.  He  insists  that  by  revolution  one 
must  mean  the  sudden  uprising  of  the  working  class,  the  bar- 
ricading of  streets,  the  upsetting  of  the  government  and  the 
instituting  of  Socialism  over  night  forcibly  by  the  working 
class  and  all  against  the  will  of  all  the  other  classes  in  the 
community. 

Such  a  programme  no  one  is  more  willing  than  myself  to 
admit  is  a  silly,  ridiculous  one.  None  but  the  very  young 
Socialists  have  any  such  ideas. 

Socialism  when  it  comes  will  come  with  the  practical  as- 
sent of  the  whole  community,  although  this  assent  will  be  only 
given  when  it  is  self-evident  to  all  that  Socialism  has  become 
an  absolute  economic  necessity. 

This  day  according  to  my  theory  of  economics  is  not  so  far 
off,  and  the  Trust,  in  which  Shaw  sees  nothing,  is  the  sign 
that  the  day  is  not  so  far  off. 

However,  whether  Shaw  or  myself  are  right  upon  the 
question  of  the  Trust,  there  is  no  question  but  that  Shaw  is 
doing  some  great  literary  work  and  incidentally  is  teaching  the 
public  a  great  many  things  that  they  should  know. 

Arnold  Daly  made  a  great  success  last  winter  in  New  York 
in  the  production  of  Shaw's  "Candida."  The  discussion  of 
the  sociologic  points  raised  by  the  play  was  of  great  value  to 
all  America. 

Shaw  has  just  written  another  new  play,  "Man  and  Super- 


Shaw's  "Super-Man."  145 

Man."  (Published  by  Brentano's,  New  York,  $1.25.)  It 
certainly  is  high-water  mark  for  Shaw,  and  those  of  my 
readers  who  are  wishing  to  see  why  it  is  that  Shaw  has  set  the 
literary  world  afire  must  read  it.  Even  if  Shaw  does  not  un- 
derstand the  Trust  Problem,  he  does  understand  the  Life 
Problem,  and  that  is  the  more  important.  Here  is  a  brief  ex- 
tract giving  a  dialogue  in  hell  which  takes  place  between  Don 
Juan  and  the  Devil  (both  characters  in  "Man  and  Super- 
Man")  : 

Don  Juan.  What  you  call  bosh  is  the  only  thing  men  dare  for. 
Later  on,  Liberty  will  not  be  catholic  enough:  men  will  die  for 
human  perfection,  to  which  they  will  sacrifice  all  their  liberties 
gladly. 

The  Devil.  Ah !  they  will  never  be  at  a  loss  for  an  excuse  for 
killing  one  another. 

Don  Juan.  What  of  that?  It  is  not  death  that  matters,  but  the 
fear  of  death.  It  is  not  killing  and  dying  that  degrades  us,  but  base 
living,  and  accepting  the  wages  and  profits  and  degradation.  Better 
ten  men  dead  than  one  live  slave  of  his  master.  Men  shall  yet  rise 
up,  father  against  son  and  brother  against  brother,  and  kill  one 
another  for  the  great  catholic  idea  of  abolishing  slavery. 

The  Devil.  Yes,  when  Liberty  and  Equality  of  you  which  prate 
shall  have  made  free  white  Christians  cheaper  in  the  labor  market 
than  black  heathen  slaves  sold  by  auction  at  the  block. 

Don  Juan.  Never  fear.'  the  white  laborer  shall  have  his  turn 
too.  But  I  am  not  now  defending  the  illusory  forms  of  the  great 
ideas  take.  I  am  giving  you  examples  of  the  fact  that  this  creature 
Man,  who  in  his  own  selfish  affairs  is  a  coward  to  the  backbone, 
will  fight  for  an  idea  like  a  hero.  He  may  be  abject  as  a  citizen; 
but  he  is  dangerous  as  a  fanatic.  He  can  only  be  enslaved  whilst 
he  is  spiritually  weak  enough  to  listen  to  reason.  I  tell  you,  gentle- 
men, if  you  can  show  a  man  a  piece  of  what  he  calls  God's  work  to 
do,  and  what  he  will  later  on  call  by  many  new  names,  you  can 
make  him  entirely  reckless  of  the  consequences  to  himself  per- 
sonally. 

What  can  be  deeper  than  his  lines  that  man  can  only  be 
enslaved  when  listening  to  reason  ?  It  sounds  straining  for  a 
paradox,  but  it's  not ;  it's  merely  the  bald  truth. 

Man  does  his  noblest  work  when  he  apparently  is  to  the 
world  the  most  unreasonable  fanatic.  The  reasonable  man 
tries  to  save  his  own  soul,  the  unreasoning  man  saves  the  soul 
of  man  and  thus  gains  his  own  salvation. 

I  had  but  little  opportunity  to  see  much  of  Shaw  last  year. 
Only  time  for  a  lunch  with  him  and  Mrs.  Shaw,  a  delightful 
acquisition  he  has  made  since  the  old  days,  at  his  apartments 


146  Wilshire   Editorials. 

on  Adelphi  Terrace.  He  is  in  much  better  health  than  for- 
merly, owing,  I  am  sure,  to  Mrs.  Shaw's  care  in  seeing  that 
his  carrots  and  beets  are  sufficiently  boiled,  for  Shaw  is  still  a 
hot  vegetarian.  Formerly  when  he  accepted  my  invitation  fo 
dinner  he  would  note,  "No  corpses,  please." 

I  wish  Shaw  would  come  to  this  country  and  lecture.  It 
matters  not  what  his  subject  would  be;  he  would  be  sure  to 
talk  Socialism,  and  his  name  would  attract  big  audiences. 


What  Men  Vote  Fob.  147 


WHAT  MEN   VOTE  FOR 

THE  great  mass  of  voters,  whether  of  the  two  old  parties 
or  of  the  independents  or  of  the  Socialist  Party,  cast 
their  votes  in  the  way  that  the  voter  thinks  will  be  of 
greatest  benefit  to  the  country  as  a  whole. 

The  strongest  and  most  fundamental  instinct  of  man  is  the 
instinct  to  act  so  as  best  to  preserve  the  race.  A  man's  instinct 
is  to  preserve  the  race,  for  his  own  preservation  can  only  be 
accomplished  by  racial  preservation.  It  is  true  that  there  are 
always  a  few  who  will  leave  the  front  and  betray  their  fellow 
men  in  order  to  save  themselves,  but  such  men  are  the  excep- 
tion. From  the  earliest  history  of  man  all  records  show  that 
the  individual  man  has  laid  down  his  life  that  the  greater 
man,  the  race  or  the  nation  might  live. 

The  old  rallying  cry,  For  God,  King  and  Country!  was 
quite  as  perfect  a  rallying  cry  as  if  it  had  been  scientifically 
concocted  with  complete  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the 
evolution  of  man.  And  the  cry  is  just  as  good  to-day  in  our 
sordid  material  struggle  for  wealth  as  it  was  in  the  days  of 
Charlemagne. 

Wars  with  cross-bows,  with  modern  rifles  or  with  the  ballot 
are  all  fundamentally  of  the  same  nature. 

We  vote,  as  we  fought,  for  God,  King,  Country.  By  God  I 
mean  the  highest  spiritual  ideal  we  are  capable  of  conceiving. 
By  King  I  mean  the  material  manifestation  of  this  ideal  in 
the  shape  of  our  candidates  and  our  party.  By  our  Country 
I  mean  the  particular  organization  of  society  to  which  we 
happen  to  be  individually  attached  and  which  we  naturally 
think  as  the  most  important  one  for  the  race  as  a  whole  to  be 
preserved. 

"Our  Country"  is  of  course  a  very  elastic  term  and  means  a 
very  different  thing  to  men  of  different  nations,  and  it  is  not 
always  mere  birth  or  abode  that  determines  a  man's  definition 
of  his  country. 

Before  the  Revolutionary  War  in  this  country  most  men 
would  have  defined  their  own  particular  colony  to  be  "Our 
Country"  for  them.    Before  the  Civil  War  a  citizen  of  Vir- 


148  Wilshire   Editorials. 

ginia  would  have  probably  called  Virginia  "Our  Country" 
rather  than  the  whole  of  the  nation.  He  certainly  would 
have  considered  the  Southern  States,  taken  as  a  whole,  as  a 
much  more  important  organism  to  be  held  intact  and  to  be 
fought  for  than  the  nation  as  a  whole.  His  willingness  to  die 
for  the  South  in  the  Civil  War  was  pretty  well  shown  by  the 
Civil  War.  If  we  go  back  into  the  time  when  men  wandered 
in  nomadic  tribes,  we  will  find  that  then  "Our  Country"  was 
simply  the  tribal  organization,  which  was  attached  to  no 
particular  part  of  the  earth.  Men  showed  just  as  willing  a 
nature  to  die  for  their  tribe  as  any  Virginian  did  for  the 
sacred  soil. 

It  seems  funny  to  say  triat  the  man  who  votes  for  a  Roose- 
velt or  a  Parker  is  impelled  to  do  so  by  the  same  fundamental 
motive  that  impels  a  man  to  die  for  his  country,  and  yet  such 
is  really  the  case. 

To  the  man  who  has  given  the  question  of  our  economic  and 
social  conditions  intelligent  and  careful  attention  and  who 
knows  that  with  the  continuance. of  our  competitive  system  the 
nation  must  remain  in  pain  and  poverty,  it  is  folly  to  vote 
for  either  Parker  or  Roosevelt,  for  neither  advocates  a  change 
of  system.  A  vote  for  Parker  or  Roosevelt  is  for  the  perpe- 
tuation of  poverty,  and  the  only  excuse  for  such  a  vote  is  ig- 
norance. And  this  is  the  true  explanation  of  most  of  the 
votes  cast  for  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties.  It  is 
not  that  the  voters  are  aware  of  what  those  parties  stand  for 
and  that  they  wish  things  to  remain  as  they  are,  although 
knowing  they  could  be  changed  for  the  better.  Not  at  all.  The 
Republican  is  just  as  sincere  in  his  idea  that  by  voting  for 
Roosevelt  he  is  doing  what  is  best  for  the  country  as  is  the 
Socialist  who  votes  for  Debs.  The  only  difference  between 
them  is  one  of  knowledge. 

A  good  many  Socialists  have  an  erroneous  theory  that  all 
Republicans  and  Democrats  are  aware  the  present  competitive 
system  robs  the  producers  and  vote  for  its  continuance  because 
they  think  that  they  themselves  are  participants  in  the  swag. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  I  doubt  if  th*ere  is  a  single  individual  in 
either  the  Republican  or  Democratic  Party,  not  even  Rocke- 
feller or  Morgan,  who  understands  the  necessary  exploitation 
of  the  producers  through  the  natural  workings  of  the  compe- 
titive system. 


What  Men  Vote  For.  149 

Workingmen  by  the  thousands  are  going  to  vote  for  Roosevelt 
who  have  practically  the  same  economic  views  as  those  held 
by  Rockefeller  and  Morgan.  They  no  more  realize  that  they 
are  living  under  a  peculiar  system  of  industry  than  a  codfish 
realizes  it  lives  in  water.  They  think  the  present  order  is  a 
permanent  one  for  all  time  to  come.  That  it  is  the  natural 
and  perpetual  order  of  industry.  Therefore  their  only  aim  is 
to  so  arrange  business  that  the  capitalist  may  be  prosperous  in 
order  that  he  may  employ  workingmen  at  high  wages  and 
short  hours. 

It  is  the  aim  of  the  politicians  to  convince  the  voters  that 
their  particular  man,  Parker  or  Roosevelt,  as  the  case  may 
be,  is  the  man  who  will  best  conduct  the  country  that  the 
capitalist  will  make  the  most  money.  The  capitalist  will  be 
swayed  by  such  arguments  because  he  wishes  to  make  money, 
and  the  workingman  because  he  wishes  the  capitalist  to  make 
the  money  that  he  may  get  better  wages. 

It  is  the  mission  of  the  Socialist  to  make  plain  to  people, 
whether  they  be  capitalists  or  workingmen,  exactly  what  the 
competitive  system  means.  That  the  workingman  should  be 
and  is  more  receptive  than  the  capitalist  to  the  socialist  philos- 
ophy goes  without  saying ;  but  that  the  capitalist,  once  intel- 
lectually convinced  of  the  iniquity  of  the  competitive  system 
and  the  superiority  and  practicability  of  Socialism,  is  sure  to 
be  averse  to  a  change  is  an  assumption  entirely  without  war- 
rant. 

It  is  difficult  to  make  a  workingman  understand  the  pos- 
sibility and  desirability  of  change,  but  nobody  would  think  of 
attributing  his  slowness  to  understand  to  his  thought  that  he 
is  a  beneficiary  of  the  present  system  and  therefore  unwilling 
to  understand.  It  is  plainly  mere  rank  stupidity.  With  the 
capitalist  this  may  be  true  and  then  his  unwillingness  en- 
hances his  stupidity,  but  the  truth  usually  remains  that  he 
does  not  understand  and  therefore  opposes  rather  than  that 
he  opposes  under  standingly. 

That  it  is  impossible  to  make  a  capitalist  a  Socialist  is  false 
both  from  experience  and  from  theory. 

Let  us  all  then  make  it  our  business  to  show  all  men, 
whether  they  be  rich  or  poor,  the  injustice  of  the  present  com- 
petitive system  and  the  justice  of  Socialism. 

Let  us  show  that  under  Socialism  all  men  will  be  benefited 


150  Wilshire   Editorials. 

beyond  words.  That  not  only  will  the  workingman  receive  his 
just  dues,  his  full  product,  but  that  he  will  live  in  a  world 
where  all  men  will  be  friends  one  to  the  other  and  where  the 
fear  of  want  will  be  abolished  from  the  land.  Let  the  rich 
man  understand  that  although  he  will  lose  the  opportunity  of 
appropriating  to  himself  the  earnings  of  others,  yet  he  will  be 
immeasurably  happier  in  a  world  where  men  are  no  longer 
watching  for  a  chance  to  rob  each  other  and  where  the  result 
of  a  successful  robbery  gives  no  pleasure  to  the  robber. 

Let  us  convince  the  voter  that  it  is  up  to  him  to  decide  with 
his  ballot  whether  poverty  shall  continue  or  not  and  then  the 
question  of  the  strenuosity  of  a  Eoosevelt  melts  into  obscurity 
before  the  question  of  Justice  to  Man. 


A  Financial  Cataclysm  Inevitable.  151 


a  financial  cataclysm  inevitable 

ALL  POLITICAL  questions  to-day  resolve  themselves 
into  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  how  a  man  can 
get  a  just  equivalent  for  his  labor.  I  doubt  if  a  single 
one,  upon  analysis,  cannot  be  reduced  to  this  simple  proposi- 
tion. 

The  problem  of  the  production  of  commodities  sufficient 
for  the  wants  of  men  upon  this  planet  has  been  completely 
solved.  We  no  longer  talk  about  the  growth  of  population  ex- 
ceeding productivity.  We  recognize  fully  that  the  only 
Problem  to-day  has  to  solve  is  that  of  distribution.  It  would 
seem  to  any  reasonable  man  that  the  mere  pointing  out  of 
the  fact  that  our  competitive  wage  system,  by  limiting  the 
laborer  to  a  wage  demanded  by  his  unemployed  fellow-laborer, 
necessarily  restricts  his  powers  of  consumption  to  the  mere 
minimum  of  existence.  While  this  is  apparently  a  self-evi- 
dent fact,  yet  it  is  one  that  is  being  constantly  overlooked,  and 
the  overlooking  of  it  will  be  found  to  be  at  the  base  of  all  our 
errors  in  the  science  of  political  economy.  There  was  a  time 
when  all  the  professors  of  political  economy  said  that  any 
theory  which  involved  the  admission  that  there  could  be 
such  a  thing  as  general  overproduction  was,  upon  the  face  of 
it,  absurd ;  that  it  was  impossible  and  absurd  to  conceive  that 
the  earth  should  produce  so  much  food  and  clothing  that  the 
people  could  not  get  enough.  They  said  that  the  explana- 
tion of  an  apparent  condition  of  overproduction  was  that  it 
was  purely  local.  If  the  Canadians,  for  instance,  were  pro- 
ducing more  wheat  than  they  wanted,  and  the  Cubans  were 
growing  more  bananas  than  they  wanted,  matters  would  adjust 
themselves  as  soon  as  a  knowledge  of  actual  conditions  was  in 
possession  of  both  Canadians  and  Cubans.  As  soon  as  this 
knowledge  should  prevail,  an  exchange  would  be  made  and 
the  whole  problem  would  be  solved.  Of  course  it  is  true 
enough  that  even  under  our  competitive  system  there  are  con- 
ditions where  there  is  overproduction  of  a  certain  commodity 
in  a  certain  place,  and  that  the  proper  commercial  knowledge 


152  Wilshire   Editorials. 

of  this  condition  would  so  facilitate  the  distribution  of  the 
local  over-production  that  it  would  be  relieved,  and  normal 
conditions  would  be  re-established.  But  looking  at  the  world 
as  a  whole,  and  realizing  that  the  competitive  wage  system 
exists  throughout  the  civilized  part  of  it,  it  cannot  be  lost 
sight  of  for  a  moment  that  it  is  easily  possible  to  have  general 
"overproduction"  simply  because  we  have  a  system  of  distri- 
bution which  prevents  any  large  distribution  of  the  products 
of  labor  to  those  who  produce,  viz.,  the  workers.  It  will  at 
once  be  urged  that  if  this  competitive  system  limits  the 
laborers'  consumption  so  that  overproduction  must  ensue,  how 
is  it  that  we  do  not  have  overproduction  continuously,  and 
why  have  we  not  been  compelled  long  ago  to  abandon  our 
competitive  system?  The  reason  is  simply  that  overproduc- 
tion arises  from  the  use  of  machinery,  and  as  we  have  been 
using  machinery,  that  is,  steam  engines,  electricity,  etc.,  for 
only  fifty  years,  we  could  not  have  the  problem  before  that 
time,  and  since  then  we  have  been  utilizing  the  surplus  above 
and  beyond  what  the  laborers  produce  in  the  production  of 
more  and  more  machinery.  If  this  process  of  the  transfor- 
mation of  the  surplus  into  new  machinery  could  continue  for- 
ever there  would  never  be  any  permanently  insoluble  unem- 
ployed problem.  There  might  be  temporary  crises  and  there 
might  be  local  states  of  overproduction,  but  finally  the  capita- 
lists would  discover  where  machinery  was  most  needed,  and 
would  so  direct  labor  that  it  would  function  at  that  point  and 
so  alleviate  any  local  unemployed  problems.  But  the  capita- 
list to-day  has  a  universal  eye  that  takes  in  a  world-wide  view, 
Railroads  in  China,  oil  refineries  in  Russia,  cotton  mills  in 
India,  he  furnishes  them  all,  quite  indifferent  as  to  nation- 
ality. When  a  system  of  underground  electric  railroads  is 
needed  in  London  and  the  British  capitalist  cannot  see  that  it 
will  be  a  profitable  undertaking,  then  an  American  sees  it  and 
builds  the  railroad.  The  capitalist  is  a  man  to  whom  patrio- 
tism is  not  even  a  last  refuge ;  he  never  considers  it  at  all. 
Whatever  country  needs  his  money  gets  it,  the  only  condition 
being  that  he  is  guaranteed  safety  and  a  return  of  dividends. 
However,  in  whatever  country  he  invests  his  money,  it  will 
be  found  upon  ultimate  analysis  that  he  is  building  this  ma- 
chinery in  order  to  feed  and  clothe  the  working  class  and  the 
farmers.    Not  that  he  has  any  philanthropic  ideas  regarding 


A  Financial  Cataclysm  Inevitable.  153 

such  a  procedure,  but  because  these  constitute  the  only  body 
of  consumers  that  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  considered. 
It  is  true  that  capital  may  be  invested  in  building  a  steel  mill 
in  Pittsburg,  and  it  may  appear  that  because  the  steel  rail  is 
sold  to  the  Vanderbilts  for  their  railways,  this  is  an  under- 
taking which  cannot  be  classed  as  giving  food  and  clothing 
to  the  working  class;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  Van- 
derbilt  only  buys  steel  rails  for  use  upon  railroads  which  are 
largely  to  be  used  to  carry  wheat  and  pork  and  cloth  for 
distribution  to  the  aforesaid  workers.  So,  whatever  way  we 
may  look  we  will  always  discover  that  although  the  commodity 
itself  turned  out  by  the  capitalist  cannot  be  consumed  directly 
by  the  workers,  still  it  is  only  one  or  two  removes  back  where 
it  will  be  found  to  be  simply  a  means  of  giving  some  com- 
modity for  the  workingman's  direct  consumption,  that  is,  his 
food,  his  clothing,  or  his  house.  Hence  our  whole  system  of 
industry  is  an  inverted  pyramid,  its  apex  being  the  con- 
sumptive ability  of  the  worker.  This  ability  to  consume  being 
strictly  limited  by  the  competitive  system  the  pyramid  can 
only  remain  where  it  is  by  means  of  the  continued  production 
of  labor-saving  machinery.  For  example,  we  build  a  steel 
rail  mill,  and  find  out  that  by  building  a  larger  and  better  one, 
we  can  save  labor.  We  dismantle  the  first  mill  and  build  a 
second  and  better  one;  and  when  this  is  finished  we  may 
again  go  through  a  similar  process  and  even  build  a  third 
still  better.  We  started  out  fifty  years  ago  and  built  an  Erie 
Canal  which  carried  water  four  feet  in  depth  and  a  canal  boat 
of  75  tons.  Then  we  enlarged  it  so  that  it  carried  seven  feet 
of  water  in  depth  and  a  canal  boat  of  250  tons,  and  now  we 
are  getting  ready  to  make  our  Erie  Canal  twelve  feet  deep  and 
able  to  carry  boats  of  a  thousand  tons.  Of  course  it  is  pos- 
sible that  in  ten  or  fifteen  years,  we  may  decide  to  enlarge 
again  and  have  boats  of  2,000  tons. 

Now  all  this  construction  of  new  iron  mills  and  of  new 
canals,  etc.,  means  the  opening  of  so  many  new  channels  for 
the  distribution  of  the  surplus  products  made  by  labor,  and  if, 
as  said,  this  could  be  continued  indefinitely  and  upon  a  large 
enough  scale  there  would  never  be  any  question  about  the  con- 
tinuance of  prosperity  and  laborers  having  constant  employ- 
ment. Of  course  this  would  be  simply  building  canals  and 
mills  in  order  to  give  ourselves  employment.    It  would  be  very 


154  Wilshire   Editorials. 

much  like  the  way  the  men  upon  a  man-of-war  are  kept  con- 
tented by  making  them  holystone  the  decks  of  the  ship ;  but 
there  are  a  good  many  people  who  imagine  that  this  is  the 
highest  and  best  we  can  get. 

However,  as  the  machinery  is  simply  built  to  furnish  goods 
to  the  laborers,  and  as  the  laborers'  capacity  to  consume  is 
limited  by  their  wages  to  a  mere  minimum  of  existence,  it  is 
evident  the  day  will  finally  come  when  we  have  too  much 
machinery.  The  Trust  is  the  significant  sign  that  that  day  is 
at  hand,  for  the  reason  that  the  Trust  exists  is  the  recognition 
of  a  state  of  overproduction.  The  basic  reason  of  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Trust  lies  in  the  recognition  by  the  capitalist 
class  that  our  industrial  machinery  has  attained  a  stage  of 
practical  completion. 

That  continued  expansion  is  as  necessary  as  it  is  impossible 
for  the  perpetuation  of  the  existing  commercial  system  is 
well  known  and  admitted  by  all  competent  writers  upon  the 
subject.  For  instance,  there  was  recently  a  very  striking  ar- 
ticle in  the  New  York  Sim,  which  is  so  able  that  I  have  de- 
cided to  incorporate  it  bodily  herewith : 

WE  NEED  LARGER  FOREIGN  MARKETS. 

The  market  value  of  the  manufactured  products  of  the  United 
States  for  1902  was,  approximately,  $15,000,000,000.  This  is  the 
product  of  more  than  half  a  million  establishments,  whose  total 
capitalization  exceeds  $10,000,000,000,  and  in  which  some  seven 
million  of  our  people  find  employment.  This  truly  enormous  busi- 
ness becomes  only  the  more  imposing  when  one  realizes  how  large 
a  percentage  of  it  is  of  recent  development.  Within  a  quarter  of  a 
century  the  number  of  our  factories  has  doubled,  their  capitaliza- 
tion has  quadrupled,  the  number  of  their  employees  has  increased 
nearly  three  times,  and  the  value  of  their  output  has  grown  from 
the  $5,500,000,000  of  1880  to  the  $15,000,000,000  of  1902. 

In  connection  with  such  a  statement  there  arises,  naturally,  a 
question  of  the  disposition  of  so  enormous  a  quantity  of  merchan- 
dise. Where  does  it  go?  Who  uses  it?  It  is  probable  that  the  off- 
hand judgment  of  many  would  declare  that  much  of  the  increase 
was  due  to  the  increase  in  our  export  trade.  Yet  the  fact  is  that 
we  export  only  about  3  per  cent,  of  it.  Of  the  American  manufac- 
tured wares  of  1902,  97  per  cent,  in  value  was  consumed  in  the  best 
market  which  the  United  States  has — the  domestic.  It  went  to  a 
trade  with  which  the  American  manufacturer  is  familiar — to  cus- 
tomers whose  wants,  habits  and  tastes  he  understands.  It  was 
sold  under  commercial  laws  and  financial  conditions  with  which  he 
i3  fully  acquainted.  The  American  manufacturer  knows  his  home 
trade,  knows  how  to  get  it,  and  caters  to  it.     He  studies  the  re- 


A  Financial  Cataclysm  Inevitable.  155 

quireraents  of  his  market,  and  that  market  is  at  all  times  quickly 
and  easily  reached.  Credit  systems,  banking  and  transportation 
facilities  make  his  domestic  trade  a  simple  process  in  comparison 
with  export  trade.  For  these  reasons  American  energy  is  bent 
toward  securing  and  holding  American  trade  against  both  domestic 
and  foreign  competition. 

But  there  is  another  side  to  this  trade  question  which  is  growing 
beyond  general  realization.  Within  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  output 
of  manufactured  products  has  increased  200  per  cent.  Actual  pro- 
ducing capacity  has  probably  increased  much  beyond  that,  inasmuch 
as  few  establishments  are  run  continually  to  the  full  extent  of  their 
producing  power.  But  the  number  of  domestic  consumers  has  in- 
creased only  a  little  more  than  50  per  cent,  within  the  same  period. 
Two  influences  appear.  One  is  that  we  now  manufacture  at  home 
many  of  those  articles  which  twenty-five  years  ago  we  imported. 
The  other  is  that  the  consuming  capacity  of  our  population  has  in- 
creased more  rapidly  than  has  the  number  of  consumers.  Stand- 
ards of  living  are  higher  and  individual  requirements  are  greater 
than  they  were  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.  Individual  wants  in- 
crease with  the  ability  of  the  individual  to  gratify  them,  and 
national  prosperity  has  transformed  much  that  was  a  luxury  of  the 
last  generation  into  an  ordinary  comfort  or  a  seeming  necessity 
for  the  present  generation.  Yet,  even  with  these  important  influ- 
ences, the  fact  stands  that  consuming  power  has  not  kept  pace 
with  the  vast  increase  in  producing  power,  and  American  manu- 
facturers are  coming  into  more  and  more  direct  confrontation 
with  an  ever-increasing  surplus  of  manufactured  wares  beyond  the 
requirements  of  the  home  market. 

There  are  two  lines  of  possible  determination  of  the  question,  and 
only  two.  One  is  limitation  of  output,  the  other  an  extension  of 
markets. 

We  look  at  our  export  trade  in  manufactured  goods  and  see  its 
increase  from  $100,000,000  in  1880  to  $150,000,000  in  1890,  and  then 
its  tremendous  leap  to  more  than  $400,000,000  in  1902.  The  dazzle 
of  these  figures  blinds  us  to  their  real  significance.  Diverted  by  a 
striking  incident,  we  lose  sight  of  the  main  issue  That  issue  does 
not  lie  in  the  mere  fact  that  there  has  been  a  very  gratifying  in- 
crease. It  rests  in  the  question  of  the  great  probability  of  serious 
reaction  upon  domestic  interests  if  that  export  trade  be  not  in- 
definitely extended  within  the  near  future. 

Already  careful  students  of  the  situation  are  asking  each  other 
how  long  we  can  continue  to  absorb  at  home  a  percentage  of  our 
products  which  will  avert  glutted  markets  and  depreciated  prices. 
Let  there  be  assumed  a  continuance  of  our  present  prosperity,  of 
big  crops  and  busy  mills  and  well  paid  labor.  There  must  be  an 
even  greater  prosperity  and  even  bigger  crops,  with  a  profitable 
market  for  them,  if  the  ever-increasing  mills  are  to  find  a  domestic 
market  for  their  ever-increasing  production.  Closely  interwoven  as 
our  industries  are,  a  cessation  of  activity  in  any  one  of  our  leading 
lines  reacts  upon  other  lines.  The  cry  of  "overproduction"  or  of 
"underproduction,"    call   it   which   you   will,   is   quickly   raised,   and 


156  Wilshire  Editorials. 

commercial  uncertainty  paves  the  way  to  commercial  stagnation. 
A  market  clogged  with  the  products  of  our  factories  compels  the 
stoppage  of  production,  limits  the  general  consuming  power,  en- 
forces general  economy  in  the  household,  and  opens  the  door  to 
hard  times. 

It  has  pleased  various  writers  and  public  officials  to  regale  ns 
with  exuberant  tales  of  the  "American  invasion"  of  this,  that  and 
the  other  market.  As  yet  our  exports  of  manufactured  goods  fill 
only  a  very  small  hole  in  the  world's  markets,  and  our  increased 
exports  are  not  due  so  much  to  our  inroads  upon  the  trade  of  our 
competitors  as  they  are  to  our  participation  in  a  general  increase 
of  world  business.  That  our  export  trade  in  manufactured  goods 
has  grown  is  as  gratifying  as  it  is  undeniable.  But  there  are  these 
three  facts  which  remain  for  the  thoughtful  consideration  of  our 
commercial  and  financial  classes: 

1.  That  we  now  export  only  3  per  cent,  of  the  products  of  our 
shops,  mills  and  factories. 

2.  That  we  now  secure  only  about  10  per  cent,  of  the  world's 
import  trade  in  manufactured  goods. 

3.  That  our  market  is  not  keeping  pace  with  our  increasing  fa- 
cilities for  production. 

Stagnation  in  American  factories  is  now  only  less  pregnant  with 
menace  to  American  interests  than  is  failure  in  our  crops. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Sun  never  considers  that  the  only 
way  to  get  a  greater  domestic  market  is  to  increase  the  wages 
of  what  it  terms  "well-paid  labor."  The  ignoring  of  this  pal- 
pable solution  is  characteristic  of  all  such  attempts  to  solve  the 
current  industrial  problem.  Of  course  to  increase  the  wages 
to  any  considerable  degree  under  a  competitive  system  is 
practically  impossible.  The  trades  unions  are  doing  a  great 
deal,  but  their  efforts  apply  to  only  a  small  proportion  of  the 
wage-earning  class,  and  even  when  they  do  get  what  they  de- 
mand, the  total  increase  is  so  small  that  it  cuts  no  appreciable 
figure  in  reducing  the  surplus  that  is  being  produced  above  and 
beyond  what  their  wages  allow  them  to  buy. 

The  solution  of  the  problem  can  only  be  found  in  the  co- 
operative wage  system,  and  this  system  can  only  be  introduced 
by  the  establishment  of  public  ownership  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction. 

The  inevitable  solution  of  the  next  economic  crisis  is  to  be 
found  in  the  motto  of  this  Magazine:  "Let  the  Nation  Own 
the  Trusts." 


Money  under  Socialism.  157 


M 


MONEY  UNDER  SOCIALISM. 

ONEY  should  rightly  be  merely  a  tool  to  facilitate 
exchange.  Suppose  I  am  a  conductor  on  a  passenger 
train,  the  time  I  give  to  the  community  on  this  work 
should  be  recompensed  by  the  community  giving  me  the  time 
of  another  man,  or  parts  of  the  time  of  a  number  of  men 
equal  to  the  time  I  have  put  in  on  the  train.  I  have  created 
no  product  that  is  of  value  to  me,  but  I  have  performed  work 
of  value  to  society.  That  is,  if  I  work  ten  hours  on  the 
railroad  train,  I  should,  in  equity,  be  able  to  command  the 
product  of  ten  hours  of  labor  from  other  men. 

Suppose  I  have  worked  ten  hours  on  the  train  and  I  want 
some  sugar,  some  cloth,  some  potatoes.  The  railway  com- 
pany gives  me  a  $5.00  gold  piece  for  my  time,  and  with  this 
money  I  buy  the  sugar,  cloth  and  potatoes  wanted. 

The  gold  in  the  $5  required  a  certain  amount  of  labor  in 
its  production,  and  the  general,  but  quite  erroneous  assump- 
tion is  that  the  labor  time  involved  in  getting  the  gold  out 
of  the  ground  and  refining  it,  is  about  equivalent  to  the 
labor  time  involved  in  producing  the  sugar,  cloth  and  pota- 
toes which  I  get  for  the  gold  piece,  or  the  time  I  worked  on  the 
train,  viz.,  ten  hours. 

In  other  words,  it  is  assumed  that  the  gold  piece  merely 
enables  me  to  get  a  fair  equivalent  in  goods  that  I  want, 
calculating  the  value  by  the  labor  of  others,  in  exchange  for 
the  time  I  spend  as  conductor  upon  the  passenger  train. 

If  this  exchange  of  labor  for  labor  were  really  made,  as 
is  assumed,  then  there  would  be  no  complaint  made  about 
the  equity  of  our  present  competitive  system ;  but  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  exchange  is  not  made  in  that  manner  at  all. 
It  is  assumed  that  if  instead  of  my  working  ten  hours  on 
the  railway,  I  spent  ten  hours  working  in  a  gold  mine,  that 
the  time  so. spent  would  on  an  average  produce  about  $5.00 
worth  of  gold,  which  I  would  get. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  I  should  leave  the  railway  train  and 
go  to  the  gold  diggings,  I  would  find  that  all  the  good  gold 


158  Wilshire   Editorials. 

mines  were  owned  by  private  individuals,  and  that  I  would 
not  be  free  to  dig  where  I  wanted.  Besides,  even  if  there 
were  good  ground  open,  I  would  require  a  great  outlay  of 
capital  in  the  way  of  tunnels,  hoisting  machines,  smelters, 
railways  to  carry  the  ore,  etc.,  etc.,  before  I  would  be  able 
to  use  the  ground.  To  work  on  rich  ground  with  proper 
tools  I  must  hire  myself  out  to  a  mining  company. 

However,  I  might  be  able  to  go  to  work  on  ground  which 
was  not  taken  up  and  which  could  be  used  without  machinery, 
and  the  result  of  my  labor  there  would  probably  be  about  the 
same  amount  per  day  as  if  I  had  taken  wages  and  worked 
for  one  of  the  mining  companies. 

In  many  of  the  mining  camps  of  California  there  are 
thousands  of  men  working  on  their  own  hook,  with  no  more 
capital  than  a  pick  and  a  pan,  upon  the  poorer  ground  and 
tailings  already  once  worked,  and  the  average  amount  they 
get  out  per  day  is  about  what  they  would  get  if  they  hired 
out  for  wages.  If  they  worked  for  one  of  the  big  companies, 
naturally,  they  might  produce  from  three  to  fifty  times  as 
much  as  if  they  worked  individually,  but  the  large  production 
would  do  them  no  good,  as  it  would  go  to  the  mining  com- 
pany owning  the  mines.  Wages  are  just  the  same,  whether 
the  mine  pays  big  profits  or  pays  no  profits  at  all. 

So  it  is  true  that  the  individual  miner,  with  no  machinery, 
on  poor  land,  working  on  his  own  hook  in  the  production 
of  gold,  gets  about  what  his  wages  would  have  been  if  he 
had  worked  for  a  mining  company,  yet  it  is  not  true  by 
any  means  that  the  average  production  per  day  per  capita 
of  the  whole  mining  camp  fixes  his  daily  wages.  The  aver- 
age production  of  the  entire  camp  per  capita  per  day  may  be 
$50.00,  yet  the  average  daily  wage  be  only  $5.00  per  day. 
The  owner  of.  the  mines  absorbs  the  $45  difference. 

However,  the  individual  miner  working  on  his  own  hook 
not  only  does  not  get  a  fair  deal  in  the  payment  for  his 
labor,  but  he  also  gets  robbed  when  he  exchanges  his  gold 
for  articles  he  wishes. 

With  his  $5.00  in  gold  he  buys  so  much  cloth,  sugar  and 
potatoes.  Upon  every  one  of  those  articles  he  pays  a  monop- 
oly profit,  owing  to  the  railway  charges  for  freight.  He 
must  reimburse  the  producers  for  all  the  tribute  that  they 
have  paid  to  the  railways  for  the  carriage  of  the  goods.    The 


Money  under  Socialism.  159 

railway  has  robbed  the  wool  grower  in  excessive  charge  upon 
the  wool  it  carried  from  the  farmer  to  the  manufacturer.  It 
has  robbed  the  manufacturer  when  it  carried  the  cloth  from 
him  to  the  retail  dealer,  and  it  again  has  robbed  the  retail 
dealer  when  he  shipped  his  goods  to  the  miner.  The  poor 
miner  must  pay  back  to  the  various  producers  all  these 
amounts,  otherwise  he  cannot  get  his  cloth. 

If  there  has  been  any  machinery  manufactured  by  a  Trust 
used  in  the  production  of  any  of  the  articles  he  buys,  of 
course  an  excessive  charge  has  been  made  for  it,  and  he 
must  reimburse  the  retailer  in  the  mining  camp  who  sells 
the  goods.  He  must  reimburse  the  farmer  for  the  excessive 
price  the  farmer  has  paid  for  the  use  of  the  mowing  ma- 
chine made  by  the  Agricultural  Machine  Trust.  Indirectly 
it  pays  tribute  to  the  Steel  Trust,  which  has  held  up  the 
railway  when  it  bought  its  steel  rails;  the  railway,  in  turn, 
must  hold  up  the  farmer  in  order  to  pay  for  those  dearly 
bought  rails,  and  then  the  farmer  must  hold  up  the  dealers 
that  buy  the  potatoes,  in  order  for  him  to  get  even. 

The  Sugar  Trust  puts  up  its  price  far  beyond  the  labor 
cost  of  manufacturing  sugar,  and  when  the  miner  gives  up 
his  gold  for  sugar,  he  must  pay  an  extra  price  that  the 
Sugar  Trust  may  pay  its  dividends  on  watered  stock. 

Hence  we  say  that  the  miner  is  not  only  robbed  in  the  be- 
ginning by  being  forced  to  take  only  $5.00  worth  of  gold 
when  he  may  have  produced  $50.00  worth,  but  he  is  robbed 
again  when  he  spends  his  $5.00,  inasmuch  as  he  has  to  pay 
tribute  to  every  Trust  in  the  country. 

He  must  also  pay  tribute  to  the  various  landlords.  Not 
only  does  he  pay  the  landlord  for  the  ground  upon  which  the 
potatoes  are  raised,  but  he  pays  the  rent  of  the  commission 
agent's  store  in  the  great  city,  and  he  pays  the  rent  of  the 
commission  agent's  house;  he  also  pays  a  monopoly  price 
for  not  only  his  own  gas,  but  he  pays  for  the  gas  used  by 
all  the  people  who  are  engaged  in  selling  and  producing  his 
cloth. 

However,  the  amount  of  gold  the  miner  gets  as  wages 
determines  what  the  conductor  gets  as  his  wages.  If  the 
conductor  were  not  satisfied  with  his  payment  and  felt  he 
could  get  fairer  treatment  by  going  to  the  mines,  he  would 
immediately  leave  the  train  and  go  to  the  mines;  but  when 


160  Wilshire   Editorials. 

he  knows  the  miner  is  robbed  just  as  much  as  he  is,  he  stays 
where  he  is  on  his  railway  train. 

So  that,  under  our  present  system,  the  daily  wage,  while 
nominally  giving  to  the  wage-earner  the  equivalent  to  what 
he  produces,  does  nothing  of  the  sort,  and  therefore,  under 
Socialism,  we  must  find  some  better  method  of  payment  if 
we  expect  to  establish  equity. 

Socialists  say  that  when  a  man  works  he  should  get  the 
equivalent  of  his  work  either  in  goods  of  his  own  production 
or  of  other  people's  production  at  his  option. 


Class  Vs.  Class  :  Resultant.  161 


CLASS  VS.   CLASS:   RESULTANT 

SOMETIMES  people  under  the  impulse  of  the  moment 
enroll  themselves  as  Socialists,  but  when  later  on,  after 
attending  some  Socialist  meeting  and  hearing  a 
speaker  declare  the  absolute  necessity  of  one's  accepting  the 
"class  struggle"  as  prerequisite  to  being  labeled  as  a  good, 
sound  Socialist,  and  hearing  class  struggle  at  the  same  time 
defined  upon  very  strict  lines,  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they 
are  not  really  Socialists  after  all. 

They  may  have  accepted  the  necessity  of  the  abolition  of  the 
competitive  system  and  the  introduction  of  the  co-operative 
system  based  upon  the  public  ownership  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction, and  they  have  thought  that  this  was  enough  to  con- 
stitute them  as  sound  Socialists,  but  when  they  find  that  not 
only  must  they  accept  Socialism,  but  that  they  must  agree 
that  it  shall  be  brought  about  in  one  particular  way  and  no 
other,  viz.,  by  the  working  class  organizing  and  forcibly  taking 
possession  of  the  earth  in  spite  of  the  active  and  continued 
opposition-  of  the  capitalist  class,  they  may  recoil. 

Then  they  find  heaped  upon  them  the  scorn  of  the  "ortho- 
dox" Socialist  and  are  told  that  they  do  not  understand  So- 
cialism as  laid  down  by  Marx. 

Now  what  is  the  Marxian  position  ?  Let  me  give  a  statement 
of  it,  with  which  I  myself  entirely  agree,  taken  from  a  recent 
editorial  in  Justice,  the  official  organ  of  the  English  Socialists. 

Briefly  stated,  the  Marxian  proposition  amounts  to  this:  All 
wealth  is  the  result  of  labor  applied  to  natural  objects.  It  is  as  im- 
possible to  differentiate  between  the  proportion  of  wealth  due  to 
natural  objects  and  that  due  to  labor  as  it  is  to  say  how  much  of 
a  child  belongs  to  the  father  and  how  much  to  the  mother.  Labor 
is  the  father  and  earth  the  mother  of  all  wealth.  Capital  is  that 
part  of  the  product  which  is  set  aside  for  reproductive  purposes. 
In  itself  it  is  part  of  the  product  of  labor.  The  total  product, 
therefore,  is  due  to  labor  and  belongs  to  labor.  In  private  hands, 
however,  capital  becomes  not  only  a  means  of  reproduction,  an 
accessory  to  labor,  but  al?o  a  means  for  exploiting  labor.  All 
wealth,  therefore,  which  goes  to  others  than  the  workers,  is  so 
much  robbery  of  labor.    It  is  in  antagonism  to  this  theory  of  labor 


162  Wilshire   Editorials. 

that  modern  Socialism  takes  its  stand.  It  insists  upon  the  class  an- 
tagonism necessarily  arising  from  the  exploitation  and  robbery  of 
labor  through  the  class  ownership  of  the  means  of  production,  and 
aims  at  the  extinction  of  this  class  struggle  by  the  emancipation 
of  the  proletariat  and  the  abolition  of  the  class  ownership  of  the 
means  of  production. 

One  who  cannot  see  the  necessity  of  a  class  struggle  prece- 
ding the  institution  of  Socialism  has  a  very  poor  idea  of  the 
Marxian  position,  and  in  fact  he  must  be  going  through  the 
world  of  to-day  with  closed  eyes  and  ears. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  a  man  be  a  Socialist,  however,  that 
he  see  the  class  feeling  existing  between  the  rich  and  the  poor. 
But  while  it  may  be  regarded  as  extremely  improbable,  yet  it 
is  not  absolutely  impossible  that  what  with  the  palpable  in- 
justice of  the  present  system  appealing  to  the  higher  natures 
of  the  rich  and  at  the  same  time  the  evolution  of  economic 
conditions  convincing  them  that  the  present  system  must  soon 
give  way  of  its  own  weight  and  that  meanwhile  pending  the 
giving  way  it  may  be  a  time  of  great  danger  and  hardship  to 
both  rich  and  poor,  a  very  considerable  proportion  of  the  rich 
themselves  will  join  with  the  working  class  and  assist  actively 
in  the  bringing  about  of  Socialism.  It  is  my  own  belief  that 
such  may  occur  and  yet  I  am  a  believer  in  the  "class  struggle." 

I  am  not  Utopian  enough  to  believe  that  any  considerable 
body  of  the  rich  will  ever  advocate  Socialism  until  it  is  evident, 
to  them  that  the  ship  of  capitalism  is  about  to  founder  and 
that  it  is  time  for  all  sensible  rats  to  desert  the  ship.  But 
simply  because  I  believe  that  many  capitalists  have  the  brains 
of  rats  and  quite  a  number  have  the  hearts  of  ordinary  men, 
I  have  had  it  thrown  at  me  that  I  was  relying  upon  the  rich 
to  hand  us  Socialism  upon  a  silver  platter.  This  is  absurd. 
We  will  get  nothing  except  that  which  must  from  the  inexor- 
able course  of  evolutionary  progress  be  given  us. 

We  must  get  our  exact  due ;    no  more,  no  less. 

Socialism  is  something  that  will  essentially  be  of  benefit  to 
the  whole  human  race,  and  inasmuch  as  the  individual  only 
lives  by  and  through  the  racial  life  it  is  fundamentally  in- 
stinctive with  him  to  sacrifice  his  individual  life  for  the  sake 
of  the  racial  life. 

This  racial  instinct  for  the  individual  to  sacrifice  himself 
for  the  whole  is  equally  strong  within  all  of  us  as  far  as  class 


Class  Vs.  Class:  Resultant.  163 

distinctions  are  concerned.  It  may  vary  in  individuals,  but 
I  doubt  if  any  particular  variance  can  be  found  according  to 
class.  This  instinct  manifests  itself  in  many  ways;  going  to 
war  "to  save  the  Union"  was  a  very  popular  way  to  display  it 
about  forty  years  ago.  Certainly  no  one  would  say  that  either 
in  the  South  or  the  North  was  the  eagerness  to  enlist  deter- 
mined by  the  fact  a  man  was  in  the  working  class  or  the 
capitalist  class.  A  child  falls  off  a  ferryboat ;  a  man  plunges 
in  to  save  it.  The  chances  are  the  plunger  is  a  poor  man,  but 
the  chances  are  such  simply  because  there  are  many  more  poor 
than  rich  and  not  because  a  rich  man  is  not  about  as  likely  to 
risk  his  life  to  save  the  child  as  a  poor  man. 

Hence  simply  as  far  as  racial  instinct  is  concerned,  a  rich 
man  may  be  as  likely  to  advocate  Socialism  as  a  poor  man, 
and  the  fact  that  certain  rich  men  do  advocate  Socialism  is  in 
evidence. 

But  Socialism  like  war  not  only  affects  the  race  as  a  whole, 
but  the  individuals  in  particular. 

The  individual  may  be  more  influenced  by  the  effect  on  him- 
self or  his  class  in  particular  than  by  the  effect  upon  the  race 
in  general.  If  he  is  a  working  man,  he  has,  as  Marx  de- 
clared, nothing  but  his  chains  to  lose  and  a  world  to  gain.  The 
only  excuse  an  American  working  man  can  have  for  not  being 
a  Socialist  is  a  defective  intellect.  If  he  is  a  rich  man,  he  may 
hastily  conclude  that  it  is  better  to  let  things  remain  un- 
disturbed, bad  as  they  are  for  most  people,  as  long  as  they  are 
fairly  good  for  him.  He  is  not  forced  to  do  disagreeable 
work ;  he  has  all  the  good  things  of  life  that  he  wants.  His 
racial  consciousness  is  not  so  pronounced  as  to  make  him  feel 
that  he  cannot  enjoy  his  life  without  having  all  other  men  en- 
joy it.  Thus  it  may  be  and  usually  is  that  the  rich  man  op- 
poses socialistic  legislation  inasmuch  as  it  tends  to  diminish 
his  present-day  pleasures. 

However,  in  this  same  rich,  selfish  man  the  racial  instinct 
exists  even  though  it  may  lie  dormant.     We  have  often  had 
examples  of  rich  men  pursuing  their  end  of  money-getting  in 
a  most  relentless  way  and  then  bequeathing  their  wealth  for  \ 
the  general  good. 

There  is  no  man  but  that  would  do  good  for  the  race  if  lie 
felt  the  doing  of  it  would  not  result  in  evil  to  himself  indi- 
vidually, and  there  are  many  men  who  will  do  good  for  the 


164  Wilshire  Editorials. 

race  even  if  it  mean  death  to  themselves  individually.  Be- 
tween these  extremes  lies  all  human  nature. 

I  may  not  willingly  give  up  my  bag  of  gold,  but  if  I  find 
myself  in  danger  of  drowning  from  its  weighing  me  down,  it 
does  not  mean  I  have  suddenly  become  of  a  more  generous 
nature  when  I  then  willingly  give  it  up. 

I  believe  the  industrial  evolution  has  proceeded  so  far  that 
a  crisis  is  about  at  hand  that  will  practically  make  all  of  us 
see  the  absolute  necessity  of  most  heroic  measures  being  taken 
to  meet  it.  I  think  a  huge  unemployed  problem  of  unex- 
ampled proportions  is  about  to  develop.  It  would  be  here  now 
were  it  not  that  certain  unanticipated  events  having  raised  the 
price  of  wheat  and  cotton  so  high  that  our  farmers  are  in  po- 
sition to  buy  goods  of  our  manufacturers  for  home  consump- 
tion to  such  an  extent  that  overproduction  is  being  unex- 
pectedly relieved.  However,  all  this  is  but  temporary.  The 
day  of  joy  for  the  cotton  and  wheat  growers  will  not  last 
forever. 

When  this  crisis  occurs,  it  will  not  take  any  study  of  Marx 
for  the  people  to  understand  that  something  must  be  done  to 
relieve  the  situation. 

Millions  of  unemployed  men  mean  millions  of  dollars  lost  to 
the  capitalists. 

There  will  be  a  national  demand  for  national  action,  much 
as  there  was  a  national  demand  for  the  President  to  intervene 
at  the  time  of  the  great  coal  strike. 

This  will  not  be  particularly  a  class  demand,  it  will  be  a 
demand  from  the  whole  nation,  because  the  whole  nation  will 
be  affected.  The  demand  for  the  settlement  of  the  coal  strike 
was  not  a  working-class  demand,  it  was  a  national  demand. 
It  was  particularly  a  demand  from  the  general  public,  who 
were  being  put  to  such  inconvenience  by  the  stoppage  of  the 
coal  supply. 

When  the  demand  for  national  action  becomes  pressing 
enough,  then  if  the  President  does  not  appoint  a  National 
Committee  there  will  be  a  Committee  formed  somehow  and 
some  way.  The  National  Demand  must  have  an  organ  to 
express  that  demand,  and  not  only  to  express  it,  but  to  carry 
out  its  wishes. 

This  demand  in  the  early  stages  of  the  crisis  will  be  very  in- 
definite.    It  will  be  merely  a  demand  that  "something"  be 


Class  Vs.  Class:  Resultant.  165 

done,  something,  anything  to  relieve  the  crisis.  It  will  be  a 
demand  of  such  an  indefinite  character  and  there  will  be  so 
little  revolutionary  in  it  that  the  most  conservative  people  will 
join  in  the  cry  for  it.  It  may  be  nothing  more  than  a  general 
plan  for  the  Nation  to  give  work  at  nominal  pay  to  the  un- 
employed. It  will  be  such  a  mild  demand  that  even  the  most 
religious  and  charitable  people  will  join  in  the  movement. 
However,  as  the  first  attempts  to  brush  back  the  sea  of  revo- 
lution with  the  broom  of  charity  will  be  seen  to  be  ineffectual, 
more  decided  measures  will  be  agreed  upon  as  being  necessary. 
I  say  "agreed"  upon,  for  my  picture  of  the  future  is  a 
NATIONAL  COMMITTEE  hastily  called  together  by  the 
nation  and  having  a  mandate  to  settle  the  crisis.  If  mild  re- 
medies do  not  avail,  then  severer  and  severer  ones  must  be 
used  until  at  last  the  heroic  dose  of  Socialism  will  be  ad- 
ministered as  the  only  possible  remedy  adequate  to  save  the 
nation's  life. 

At  the  beginning  of  things  Socialism  will  not  be  generally 
thought  of.  It  will  only  be  the  inexorable  logic  of  events 
piling  upon  themselves  with  terrifying  rapidity  that  will 
finally  bring  the  conservative  members  of  the  Revolutionary 
National  Committee  to  see  the  necessity  of  Socialism.  And 
even  when  they  do  "see  it"  they  will  probably  only  regard  it  as 
a  temporary  remedy  and  think  that  conditions  will  after 
awhile  simmer  down  so  that  we  may  go  back  to  the  old  times 
of  competition  and  private  ownership. 

It  will  be  necessary  to  give  bread  to  the  workers  in  New 
York  City.  Wheat  in  Minnesota  must  be  requisitioned,  eleva- 
tors must  be  operated  to  transfer  the  wheat  from  boats  to  cars, 
Vanderbilt's  railways  must  be  taken  and  operated  by  the 
Government  as  if  in  war  time  to  bring  the  wheat  from  the 
West  to  the  Atlantic.  This  will  be  at  the  final  stage  of  the 
crisis,  when  trying  to  feed  the  people  with  the  machinery  of 
production  under  private  guidance  has  proved  a  failure.  The 
Government  is  forced  to  take  over  the  machinery.  This  taking 
over  will  most  probably  be  looked  upon,  as  said,  as  quite  as 
much  a  mere  temporary  affair,  such  as  was  the  taking  over  of 
a  railway  in  the  Civil  War.  But  there  will  never  recur  a  time 
when  the  steps  can  be  retraced  and  private  ownership  re- 
stored. This  to  me  is  the  likely  course  of  the  revolutionary 
process  by  which  we  will  be  landed  into  Socialism. 


166  Wilshire   Editorials. 

I  think  we  will  never  have  Socialism  until  the  working 
class  become  conscious  of  being  a  class  and  a  disinherited  class, 
and  until  as  the  result  of  this  class  consciousness  they  struggle 
as  a  class  for  the  institution  of  a  society  in  which  they  will 
be  equal  participators  with  all  at  the  festal  board  of  humanity. 

But  I  do  not  think  the  working  class  will  become  class-con- 
scious until  material  conditions,  in  the  course  of  economic  evo- 
lution, have  prepared  the  ground  for  this  consciousness  to 
manifest  itself.  The  chicken's  brain  is  not  developed  until 
after  its  body  is  developed  and  until  it  is  physically  ready  to 
emerge  from  its  shell  and  live  a  new  life.  But  the  very  econo- 
mic conditions  which  develop  the  class  consciousness  of  the 
poor  also  develop  the  class  consciousness  of  the  rich.  When  the 
poor  realize  that  the  present  competitive  system  means  death 
to  society,  the  rich  will  also  realize  it,  and  they  too  will  see 
the  necessity  of  surrendering  to  the  inevitable. 

It  is  true  that  inasmuch  as  the  poor  are  in  the  vast  nu- 
merical majority  it  may  be  argued  that  even  if  the  rich  do  not 
peaceably  surrender  they  can  be  forced  to  do  so  by  the  superior 
power  of  the  poor.  True  enough,  but  that  the  rich  should 
enter  into  a  palpably  hopeless  struggle  against  both  the  Will 
of  Man  and  the  Will  of  God  is  too  insane  an  idea  to  be  enter- 
tained. 

I  say  the  Will  of  God,  and  by  that  I  mean  the  economic 
development  of  industry,  for  after  all  when  we  say  God's  Law 
or  God's  Will  we  simply  mean  a  progress  of  events  which  is 
so  in  the  nature  of  things  that  no  one  who  recognizes  the 
reason  of  the  progression  will  attempt  to  interfere  with  it. 
There  are  not  many  Canutes  who  nowadays  try  to  force  back 
the  tide  with  a  broom. 

We  Socialists,  who  hold  to  the  materialistic  conception  of 
history,  would  have  to  admit  of  having  a  ridiculously  low 
conception  of  the  intelligence  of  the  rich  if  we  would  deny 
the  possibility  of  the  rich  recognizing  the  break  down  of  the 
present  system  when  the  evidences  of  it  were  so  palpable  that 
an  idiot  could  not  fail  to  see  them. 

As  materialists  we  must  concede  that  both  a  rich  man  and 
a  poor  man  must  at  a  certain  final  stage  of  the  progress  of 
evolutionary  development  of  society  see  the  inevitability  of  the 
wreck  of  our  competitive  ship  of  state. 

A  land  lubber  may  not  see  any  cause  for  worry  when  he 


Class  Vs.  Class:  Eesultant.  167 

hears  a  distant  sound  and  yet  the  captain  may  know  that  the 
sound  is  of  breakers  upon  a  reef  and  that  the  ship  cannot  pos- 
sibly escape.  The  lubber  may  not  see  danger  this  moment,  but 
it  only  requires  a  near  enough  approach  to  the  reef  and  a  loud 
enough  roar  of  the  breakers  to  make  him  see  danger  just  as 
clearly  as  the  captain. 

The  lubber  may  be  in  the  steerage  or  in  the  first  cabin,  but 
whatever  his  status,  when  the  ship  is  near  the  rocks,  he  will 
know  that  it  must  be  wrecked. 

If  in  the  steerage,  it  may  be  that  the  food  and  lodging 
he  is  getting  are  such  that  he  would  be  looking  forward  to  the 
termination  of  his  voyage  with  more  impatience  than  if  he 
were  in  the  cabin.  He  might  therefore  see  the  shore  quicker 
because  he  would  be  wishing  for  the  voyage  end  more  intently, 
but  even  so  it's  only  a  question  of  hours  when  the  man  in  the 
cabin  will  see  the  shore,  be  it  reef  or  dock,  quite  as  plainly  as 
the  steerage  passenger. 

This  metaphor  is  not  exact;  no  metaphor  is.  Perhaps,  if 
I  had  used  the  word  galley-slave  instead  of  steerage  passenger, 
it  would  have  been  nearer  the  mark,  but  even  that  would  not 
be  quite  exact. 

The  ship  of  state  is  not  being  propelled  onward  by  forces 
with  which  the  passengers  have  nothing  to  do.  Its  movement 
is  the  resultant  of  the  action  of  class  upon  class.  It  becomes 
socially  conscious  as  the  resultant  of  such  interaction.  So- 
cialism will  result  when  we  become  socially  conscious  of  its 
desirability  and  its  necessity. 

This  social  consciousness  is  the  resultant  of  the  class  con- 
sciousness of  the  poor  working  upon  and  against  the  class 
consciousness  of  the  rich. 

It  is  absurd  to  deny  that  class  consciousness  will  not  develop 
with  either  rich  or  poor,  and  it  is  absurd  to  deny  that  the  two 
classes  will  not  as  classes  oppose  each  other,  but  it  is  also  ab- 
surd to  say  that  there  will  be  no  resultant  as  the  effect  of  the 
meeting  of  these  two  opposing  forces. 

The  resultant  is  the  social  consciousness  that  will  make  us 
realize  the  necessity  of  Socialism. 

Those  young  beginners  in  Socialism  who  deny  the  necessity 
of  the  class  struggle  and  class  consciousness,  however,  are  no 
more  unscientific  than  those  older  heads  who  would  have  us 
believe  that  it  is  merelv  the  class  consciousness  of  the  working 


168  Wilshire   Editorials. 

class  that  is  to  guide  society  in  its  final  movement  to  Social- 
ism. 

We  must  finally  depend  upon  the  social  consciousness,  but 
to-day  it  is  too  early  to  rely  upon  that  force.  We  must  first 
have  each  class  conscious  of  its  position  and  have  a  definite 
struggle  between  these  two  classes  before  we  can  look  for  any 
effective  social  consciousness. 

Meanwhile  the  position  of  the  Socialist  must  necessarily  be 
upon  the  side  of  the  working  class,  even  though  he  may  look 
forward  to  a  future  where  there  will  be  no  classes  and  no 
class  struggles. 

The  class  struggle  is  a  necessity  to  develop  that  class  con- 
sciousness which  is  the  prelude  to  the  social  consciousness 
which  will  lead  society  to  welcome  the  change  to  Socialism. 


Effect  of  the  Earthquake  on  Socialism.      169 


EFFECT   OF   THE    EARTHQUAKE    ON 
SOCIALISM 

THE  earthquake  in  California  by  the  destruction  of  some 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  of  property  will  help 
enormously  toward  continuing  "prosperity"  in  this 
country.  What  the  present  competitive  system  needs  above 
all  things  else  is  a  "market."  The  earthquake  will  force 
California  to  be  the  largest  and  best  buyer  in  the  world  for 
the  next  two  years.  The  rebuilding  of  her  fallen  cities  will 
stimulate  business  not  only  throughout  the  United  States, 
but  indeed  throughout  the  world.  California  will  not  only 
have  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  insurance  money  to  spend, 
but  she  will  borrow  millions  in  addition.  There  will  be 
no  shortage  of  money.  I  have  been  saying  that  unless  we 
had  a  great  war  that  a  profound  period  of  depression  was 
sure  to  appear  within  two  years  in  this  country  as  the  result 
of  an  inevitable  over-production.  I  now  retract  my  prophesy. 
I  did  not  count  on  an  earthquake.  I  now  wish  to  extend 
the  time;  the  California  earthquake  should  put  off  the  crisis 
at  least  one  year  longer.  In  the  meanwhile  there  should  be 
a  great  boom  in  the  stocks  of  all  kinds  of  railways  and  in- 
dustrial corporations  and  real  estate.  Even  land  values  in 
San  Francisco  will  finally  rise  far  beyond  values  just  before 
the  earthquake. 

There  is  now  some  twaddle  about  San  Francisco  not  being 
rebuilt,  because  people,  it  is  said,  will  be  afraid  to  live  there 
hereafter. 

The  man  that  talks  this  way  must  have  a  theory  that  men 
live  in  certain  particular  places  because  they  are  health  resorts. 
Men  must  live  where  they  do  to  get  a  living. 

San  Francisco  is  the  natural  port  of  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
she  has  the  best  harbor  in  the  world,  with  such  advantages 
it  will  always  pay  men  to  trade  there,  and  therefore  there  will 
always  be  men  to  be  found  where  there  is  good  pay. 

It  will  not  be  six  months  before  we  will  sing  the  praises  o£ 


170  Wilshire   Editorials. 

the  courageous  men  who,  as  if  by  magic,  made  San  Francisco 
spring  from  its  ashes. 

If  danger  would  keep  men  away  from  their  occupations 
there  would  be  few  men  working  in  our  white  lead  factories, 
our  coal  mines,  our  tunnel  work  under  rivers. 

Does  the  fact  that  every  year  tens  of  thousands  of  men  are 
killed  and  injured  prevent  our  railways  from  hiring  all  the 
men  they  want? 

San  Francisco  might  have  an  earthquake  every  month  and 
yet  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  hiring  all  the  men  one 
might  want  there. 

The  aid  extended  from  all  parts  of  the  world  to  the  stricken 
people  in  California  shows  how  strong  is  the  instinct  of  the 
brotherhood  of  humanity  which  lies  latent  in  the  breast  of  all 
of  us.  It  also  showed  us  that  the  brotherhood  does  not  stop 
at  national  boundary  lines,  as  Roosevelt  by  his  negation  of 
foreign  aid  for  California  would  have  it  do. 

Without  that  instinct  the  world  indeed  would  be  a  chaos. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  necessity  of  martial  law  to  prevent 
looting  of  the  ruins  by  thieves  shows  that  the  competitive 
system  has  so  deeply  demoralized  men  that  they  will  take 
advantage  of  their  brother  men  even  in  such  a  state  of  uni- 
versal calamity. 

The  earthquake  has  at  once  shown  us  the  best  and  the 
worst  in  us. 

The  world  lost  far  more  in  the  death  in  Paris  of  Professor 
Curie,  the  man  who  with  his  wife  discovered  radium,  than 
it  lost  in  all  the  burnt  buildings  of  San  Francisco. 


The  Fallacy  of  Public  Ownership.  171 


THE  FALLACY  OF  PUBLIC  OWNERSHIP 

AS  an  interested  spectator  I  attended  a  convention  called 
last  month  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  to  effect  a  union  of  all 
reform  parties  with  the  Populist  party.  The  so-called 
Public  Ownership  party,  however,  was  the  only  party  besides 
the  Populist  party  that  sent  official  representation.  There 
were  about  75  delegates  in  all,  and  they  adopted  the  name 
of  Allied  People's  Party  as  their  future  cognomen,  with  a 
platform  which  had  little  in  it  beyond  a  demand  for  Public 
Ownership  of  Public  Utilities  and  for  the  Initiative  and  Ref- 
erendum. The  convention  adjourned  on  April  5,  and  that 
night  an  open  meeting  was  held  in  the  convention  hall  at 
which  I  had  the  honor  of  being  the  principal  speaker.  I  was 
very  glad  of  the  opportunity  afforded  me  to  explain  to  the 
Populist  delegates  the  difference  between  the  Socialist  theory 
of  politics  and  that  of  the  Populists,  and  I  am  confident 
that  my  remarks  will  bear  considerable  fruition. 

The  Populists  are  to-day  ripe  for  Socialism,  and  in  fact 
all  of  them  are  rather  hurt  if  you  question  their  Socialism. 
However,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  very  few  of  them  have 
any  political  ideal  other  than  the  present  competitive  system, 
tempered  with  Public  Ownership  and  controlled  by  the 
Initiative  and  Referendum. 

Now,  let  me  say  at  once  that  I,  too,  am  in  favor  of  the 
Initiative  and  Referendum  and  of  Public  Ownership.  I  advo- 
cated on  the  stump  and  in  the  press  both  these  important 
measures  five  years  before  the  Populist  party  was  born,  and 
I  to-day  would  be  the  first  to  agree  that  of  all  reform  meas- 
ures these  are  probably  the  most  important.  I  would  not 
say  that  if  I  thought  either  one  of  them  could  be  gained 
at  once  by  dropping  the  Socialist  program  and  concentrating 
upon  them  I  would  not  feel  justified  in  joining  in  such  a 
policy.  It  is  not  that  I  am  impatient  for  the  whole  program 
or  that  I  decry  the  importance  of  these  measures  that  I  re- 
fuse to  bother  with  them,  but  it  is  because  I  think  the  best 
way  to  get  the  part  is  to  demand  the  whole,  if  it  is  not 


172  Wilshire   Editorials. 

indeed  easier  to  get  the  whole  than  any  of  its  parts.  In  the 
first  place,  in  order  to  get  the  people  to  move  you  must 
give  them  a  reason  for  moving. 

The  mere  fact  that  a  man  has  arms  is  no  reason  why 
he  will  work  unless  he  finds  some  reason  for  the  working. 
I  use  my  arms  to  get  my  dinner,  and  if  there  is  no  dinner 
in  prospect  my  arms  will  not  be  used.  It  is  so  with  the 
Initiative  and  Eeferendum.  I  must  first  have  something  to 
get  by  political  power  before  I  will  want  political  power. 
Then  if  I  find  that  the  present  representative  system  does 
not  afford  me  the  machinery  to  get  what  I  want,  and  I  think 
that  Direct  Legislation  will  enable  me  to  accomplish  my 
desires,  I  will  work  for  the  Initiative  and  Eeferendum.  But 
in  order  to  get  me  to  work  for  it  you  must  first  show  me 
what  I  am  to  get  by  having  such  a  political  reform. 

Now,  every  Socialist  sees  a  great  ideal  in  Socialism,  and 
therefore  he  takes  a  great  interest  in  any  political  measure 
that  promises  him  an  easier  method  than  he  now  has  of 
gaining  his  ideal.  Hence  we  see  in  certain  European  coun- 
tries, notably  Belgium  at  present,  that  the  Socialists  are  at 
the  forefront  in  demanding  universal  suffrage. 

In  this  country  we  have  universal  suffrage,  but  the  people 
are  such  fools  that  they  do  not  know  how  to  use  such  a 
complicated  weapon,  and  so  Socialists  favor  giving  them  a 
more  simple  way  of  expressing  their  views  at  the  polls;  and 
therefore  they  are  in  full  sympathy  with  the  demand  for 
Direct  Legislation.  It  has  been  a  cardinal  plank  in  their 
political  platforms  for  twenty  years  or  more.  Now,  the 
ideal  that  the  Populists  are  holding  up  to  the  people  to  be 
gained  by  Direct  Legislation  is  that  of  Public  Ownership  of 
Monopolies.  The  question  to  be  decided  is  whether  such 
an  ideal  in  any  way  can  be  held  to  be  a  better  vote-getter 
than  that  of  Socialism.  Granting  that  both  Public  Owner- 
ship and  Socialism  are  equal  in  their  practicability,  and  that 
one  could  be  put  in  operation,  if  the  people  willed  it,  as  soon 
as  the  other,  there  is  absolutely  no  comparison  between  the 
two  programs  simply  as  ideals.  Socialism  is  heaven.  Public 
Ownership,  at  best,  is  a  third-rate  boarding  house.  However, 
the  Populist  would  answer  that  Public  Ownership  has  the 
advantage  of  being  more  easily  understood  and  that  it  is 
something  the  people  are  ready  to  adopt  right  now,  whereas 


The  Fallacy  of  Public  Ownership.  173 

Socialism  is  now  looked  upon  by  most  people,  at  best,  as  only 
a  beautiful  dream  and  quite  outside  the  realm  of  practical 
politics.  That  the  tremendous  majorities  given  last  month  in 
Chicago  for  Public  Ownership  is  conclusive  evidence  that 
the  people  are  ready  right  now  for  such  a  program.  Now, 
facts  are  stubborn  things,  and  if  the  vote  expressed  by  the 
Referendum  in  Chicago  is  indicative  of  the  sentiment 
throughout  the  United  States,  and  I  admit  it  is  to  a  certain 
extent,  and  if  a  political  party  can  be  built  upon  such  a 
sentiment,  then  certainly  the  Public  Ownership  policy  is  a 
good  political  policy  for  the  new  Allied  People's  party  to 
adopt.  However,  I  doubt  if  any  political  party  can  be  built 
upon  a  policy  of  Public  ownership.  I  believe  that  both 
Democrats  and  Republicans  will  adopt  such  a  program  in 
its  entirety  if  they  see  that  they  must  do  so  in  order  to  win. 
The  vote  in  Chicago  was  not  a  party  vote,  and  I  do  not 
think  there  has  yet  ever  developed  a  division  between  the 
old  parties  on  the  question  of  Public  Ownership.  No  sooner 
will  the  sentiment  of  Public  Ownership  become  powerful 
enough  than  every  candidate  of  every  party  will  declare  in 
its  favor.  He  will  do  this  to  insure  his  election,  and  even 
though  he  may  not  intend  at  the  time  of  his  declaration 
to  carry  out  his  pledge,  yet  with  the  growth  of  sentiment 
upon  the  subject  there  can  be  no  fear  of  the  ■will  of  the 
people  not  being  carried  into  effect.  The  movement  toward 
Public  Ownership  coincides  with  the  interests  of  such  a  large 
proportion  of  the  population  and  runs  counter  to  so  few 
that  I  cannot  see  the  possibility  of  any  party  being  formed 
to  oppose  it.  It  would  seem  if  no  party  will  take  ground 
against  Public  Ownership,  that  then  it  would  follow  that 
there  is  no  necessity  to  form  a  party  to  carry  it  into  effect, 
simply  because  the  existing  parties  will  carry  it  forward  to 
preserve  their  existence. 

Moreover,  the  sentiment  for  Public  Ownership,  with  the 
exception  as  far  as  it  relates  to  railroads  and  telegraphs,  is 
very  likely  to  be  of  a  local  nature.  Chicago  demands  Public 
Ownership,  not  so  much  because  she  has  any  great  idea  of 
the  benefits  of  such  ownership,  but  because  she  has  had  a 
very  full  experience  of  the  iniquity  of  private  ownership. 
Many  cities  have  not  had  the  advantage  of  such  able  and 
courageous  instructors  in  political  economics  as  has  Chicago 


174  Wilshire   Editorials. 

with  her  hoodie  aldermen.  And  even  where  a  city  has  had 
considerable  attention  paid  to  her  education  in  this  regard, 
like  my  native  city  of  Cincinnati,  for  instance,  it  does  not 
6eem  to  follow  that  any  great  amount  of  benefit  always  re- 
sults. I  was  in  Cincinnati  last  month  at  the  time  the  election 
returns  from  Chicago  came  in,  and  was  informed  by  people, 
who  seemed  competent  to  judge,  that  there  was  no  such 
sentiment  in  Cincinnati  as  was  shown  in  Chicago  for  Public 
Ownership.  Now,  Cincinnati  has  been  for  years  notoriously 
under  the  domination  of  the  Gas  Co.,  the  Street  Railway 
Co.  and  the  Telephone  Co.,  who  have  a  beautiful  combina- 
tion to  rob  her  of  all  she  may  possess,  yet  she  has  not  even 
yet  made  up  her  mind  to  have  a  change.  Then  there  are 
many  cities  that  either  do  not  have  such  a  particularly  bad 
service  from  their  private  corporations  that  there  has  been 
any  sentiment  aroused,  and  what  occurs  in  Chicago  or  Cin- 
cinnati has  no  direct  interest  to  them.  Then,  again,  it  might 
be  that  Chicago  would  be  successful  in  her  demand  for  the 
municipal  ownership  of  her  public  utilities.  The  moment 
this  occurred  she  would  fall  out  of  line  from  those  fighting 
for  Public  Ownership,  as  she,  having  gained  her  own  ends, 
would  have  nothing  to  fight  for;  and  no  matter  how  much 
6he  might  be  interested  from  the  altruistic  standpoint,  in, 
say,  Cincinnati,  since  she  could  not  vote  in  the  Cincinnati 
elections,  such  feelings  wouH  not  carry  much  political 
weight.  It  also  must  be  remembered  that  more  than  half 
the  population  of  the  country  live  on  farms  and  in  small 
villages,  where  there  is  not  now,  nor  ever  can  be,  any  purely 
municipal  problems  to  be  solved,  hence  as  the  Populist  party 
is  born  of  the  farmers,  it  cannot  look  for  farmers'  support 
upon  a  municipal  public  ownership  platform. 

There  then  remains  the  consideration  of  a  platform  being 
successful  with  the  people  that  depends  upon  a  demand  for 
public  ownership  of  railways  and  telegraphs  and  natural 
monopolies.  That  the  sentiment  in  this  direction  is  grow- 
ing very  fast  cannot  be  denied,  but  that  it  will  crystallize 
into  a  party  platform  and  be  opposed  by  other  party  plat- 
forms I  very  much  doubt.  There  are  vast  numbers  of  people 
who  are  so  indirectly  affected  by  the  railway  tariffs  that  it 
will  probably  be  very  difficult  to  arouse  their  support.  For 
instance,  a  city  laborer  will  be  a  very  difficult  man  to  con- 


The  Fallacy  of  Public  Ownership.  175 

vince  that  government  ownership  of  railways  would  help  him 
as  much  as  a  ton  of  coal  in  the  cellar  sent  around  by  "Bath- 
House  Tim,"  the  president  of  Tammany  Club  No.  6.  What 
the  laborer  is  interested  in  is  not  the  farmer  nor  the  mer- 
chant, but  himself.  He  wants  first  and  foremost  a  job,  and 
after  he  has  a  reasonable  assurance  of  the  job  he  then  com- 
mences to  think  of  a  little  better  wages.  Beyond  this  idea 
the  average  laborer  seldom  rises,  and  nobody  can  blame  him 
who  remembers  that  self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of 
nature. 

Let  us,  for  the  moment,  consider  the  ideal  presented  by 
a  complete  system  of  public  ownership  of  "monopolies,*' 
both  municipal  and  national.  And  by  "monopolies"  I  mean 
not  all  the  means  of  production  and  distribution,  but  a 
selected  few,  such  as  the  gas  and  water  supplies,  etc.,  of 
cities,  the  railroads  of  the  country  and  possibly  a  few  of 
the  trusts.  We  already  know  from  the  experience  of  other 
cities  and  countries  that  Public  Ownership,  while  having 
many  advantages  over  private  ownership,  is  no  solution  of 
the  labor  problem.  I  remember  well  that  the  one  sight  that 
impressed  itself  upon  me  in  Glasgow  was  the  number  of 
miserable  women  seen  in  the  wet  streets  puddling  about  with 
bare  feet,  and  usually  with  bare  heads.  This  is  something 
I  have  never  seen  in  Paris  or  London  or  New  York.  Now, 
such  a  picture  is  not  a  reassuring  one  of  the  benefit  to  labor 
flowing  from  municipal  ownership.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  Glasgow  owns  all  her  public  utilities,  including  the 
street-car  lines.  To-day  we  are  hearing  of  a  threatened  so- 
cial revolution  in  Belgium,  yet  Belgium  is  par  excellence 
the  country  of  Public  Ownership.  Not  only  are  the  muni- 
cipal utilities  owned  by  the  cities,  but  the  State  owns  the 
railways  and  telegraphs,  and  yet  Belgium  is  no  Utopia. 

Public  Ownership  upon  the  lines  laid  down  as  above  sim- 
ply means  a  certain  probable  benefit  to  those  workmen  who 
happen  to  be  employed  in  the  utilities  taken  over  by  the 
public,  and  a  further  benefit  to  the  public  that  is  served  by 
the  said  utilities.  However,  this  last  benefit  may  be  of  but 
very  temporary  duration  as  far  as  the  economy  of  the  serv- 
ice is  concerned.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  at  all  certain 
that  the  economy  will  be  very  great  if  wages  of  employees 
are  raised  and  hours  shortened,  and  even  if  it  is  marked, 


176  Wilshire  Editorials. 

then  it  is  almost  a  certainty  that  the  price  received  by  the 
shippers  will  in  most  cases  recede  by  competition  to  a  point 
where  all  that  was  gained  by  a  lowering  of  freight  rates  will 
be  lost. 

As  far  as  the  trusts  go  they  now  charge  all  the  traffic 
will  bear  for  their  goods,  and  those  that  are  not  nationalized 
will  naturally  gain  for  themselves  any  advantage  in  the  lower- 
ing of  freight  rates;  but  I  do  not  see  where  either  their  em- 
ployees or  the  consumer  will  come  in.  The  farmer  shipping 
wheat  would,  of  course,  gain  by  a  lowered  freight  rate,  as 
the  price  of  wheat  is  not  fixed  by  competition  limited  to 
this  country,  but  is  fixed  in  the  world  market.  Hence,  any- 
thing he  may  gain  in  economy  of  transportation  or  produc- 
tion he  will  get.  But  the  wheat  farmer  is  not  the  typical 
farmer.  If  he  were,  then  certainly  the  farmers  would  be 
fools  not  to  favor  nationalizing  railways.  If  the  Public 
Ownership  policy  were  carried  into  effect  it  would  simply 
mean  that  those  holders  of  the  private  wealth  not  national- 
ized would  get  all  the  profits  that  now  go  to  the  whole 
body  of  the  holders  of  private  wealth. 

If  the  Vanderbilt  railways  were  nationalized,  then  Vander- 
bilt  would  buy  up  the  flour  mills  and  get  his  profits  out  of 
them  instead  of  out  of  the  railways. 

It  must  always  be  remembered  that  under  the  competitive 
wage  system  the  whole  of  the  product,  above  and  beyond 
what  must  be  given  as  wages  to  the  laborers  in  order  that 
they  can  buy  enough  to  keep  themselves  alive,  falls  to  the 
capitalist  class,  under  the  various  names  of  rent,  interest 
and  profits.  Public  Ownership  can  do  nothing  but  effect  a 
different  method  of  division  among  the  capitalists.  The  la- 
borers must  remain  where  they  are  as  long  as  the  competi- 
tive wage  system  prevails.  To-day  we  see  the  beef  trust 
raising  its  prices  to  unheard-of  rates.  What  does  this  mean? 
Does  it  mean  that  the  workman  will  eat  less  meat?  Not 
necessarily;  he  may  think  that  he  must  have  what  he  has 
been  accustomed  to,  and  that  if  he  must  pay  more,  then 
he  will  either  strike  for  higher  wages  to  allow  a  continuance 
of  his  usual  rations  of  beef  or  he  will  cut  off  on  some  other 
portion  of  his  expenditure,  say  his  sugar  or  his  coal  oil. 
But  whatever  he  does,  it  means  that  for  the  time  being, 
until  some  other  trust  puts  up  its  price,  the  Beef  Trust  will 


The  Fallacy  of  Public  Ownership.  177 

be  just  so  much  ahead  on  account  of  its  raise  of  price  if 
the  workman  eats  as  much  meat  as  he  did  before.  Now, 
suppose  the  Sugar  Trust  pumps  up  its  price.  Again,  the 
workman  may  either  strike  for  more  wages  or  he  may  eat 
less  sugar,  or  he  may  eat  the  same  amount  and  cut  down  his 
bread  allowance.  If  he  eat  the  same  amount,  then  the  Sugar 
Trust  gains  so  much  and  some  other  trust  loses  so  much. 
It's  a  very  pretty  game  this  now  being  played  by  the  Trusts, 
one  against  the  other,  each  seeing  how  high  he  can  put  prices 
and  each  knowing  that  the  higher  he  puts  his  price  to  the 
workman,  then  the  less  there  is  for  the  other  fellows. 

Now,  if  we  had  municipal  ownership  of  street  cars  and 
Tom  Johnson's  3-cent-fare  program,  it  would  simply  mean 
that  there  would  be  a  swoop  of  the  capitalists  down  upon 
that  two  cents  the  workingman  saved,  each  trying  to  carry 
off  the  whole  of  it.  The  workman  would  not  hold  it  long 
enough  to  get  it  warm  before  the  landlord  would  tell  him 
that,  owing  to  the  great  demand  for  houses  incident  to  the 
lower  street-car  fares  he  was  very  sorry  to  inform  him  that 
land  values  and  rents  had  gone  up,  and  that,  therefore, 
hereafter  he  must  expect  to  pay  an  advanced  rent  for  his 
house.  The  landlord  might  also  tell  him  that  it  would  not 
be  felt  because  the  saving  on  car  fare  that  he  and  his  family 
would  make  every  month  would  offset  the  increase  in  rent. 
Then,  if  there  were  anything  left,  the  Beef  Trust  might 
find  it  out  and  put  up  the  price  of  his  beef,  and  so  on  right 
down  along  the  line  until  the  two  cents  would  simply  be 
a  misty  memory. 

However,  the  main  indictment  I  have  against  a  political 
program  limiting  itself  to  Public  Ownership  is  the  one  I 
dwelt  mostly  upon  in  my  speech  before  the  Allied  Party 
Convention.  It  is  that  it  takes  no  note  of  the  tendency  of 
our  industrial  development  to  shortly  present  to  this  coun- 
try for  solution  a  great  unemployed  problem.  The  trusts 
mean  that  the  creation  of  new  machinery,  which,  has  so  long 
given  employment  to  labor,  is  now  about  to  come  to  an  end 
simply  because  there  is  no  new  machinery  to  create.  Public 
Ownership  is  absolutely  no  solution  of  this  problem,  inas- 
much as  the  reason  of  the  unemployed  exists  in  the  com- 
petitive wage  system  which  the  Public  Ownership  people 
do  not  seem  to  have  the  faintest  idea  of  abolishing.    There 


178  Wilshiee   Editorials. 

is  but  one  way  of  abolishing  the  competitive  "wage  system, 
and  that  is  by  the  substitution  of  the  co-operative  wage 
system,  otherwise  Socialism. 

The  argument  that  Socialism  is  impracticable,  while  Public 
Ownership  is  practicable,  is  just  the  reverse  of  the  truth.  In 
the  first  place,  as  said,  it  is  Public  Ownership  that  is  im- 
practicable, because  it  will  fail  to  answer  the  most  important 
of  all  the  political  questions  of  the  future,  namely,  that  of 
the  unemployed  problem.  In  the  next  place,  even  if  we 
had  no  unemployed  problem,  the  Nationalization  of  Industry, 
if  put  into  effect  upon  any  considerable  scale,  would  create 
such  a  revolutionary  change  in  our  industrial  and  financial 
affairs  that  it  would  surely  be  a  precursor  of  a  revolutionary 
social  movement. 

Suppose  we  accomplish  the  first  impossibility  and  get  the 
trustowned  TJ.  S.  Congress  to  either  grant  us  the  Initiative 
and  Referendum,  by  which  we  could  get  Public  Ownership 
ourselves,  or  grant  it  to  us  direct. 

To  me  it  seems  absurd  that  either  of  these  events  could 
take  place.  The  trusts  may  make  some  concessions  to  public 
opinion,  but  they  will  hardly  commit  suicide. 

However,  suppose  Congress  does  Nationalize  the  Trusts 
and  the  Railroads.  Of  course,  in  any  partial  nationalizing 
process  manifestly  we  must  pay  the  owners  for  their  prop- 
erty. They  must  be  paid,  for  confiscation  would  mean  revo- 
lution right  then  and  there.  Hence,  there  would  be  placed 
in  their  hands  an  enormous  sum  of  floating  capital  in  the 
shape  of  cash  or  bonds,  and  those  owners  would  have  the 
rest  of  the  world  at  their  mercy. 

It  would  mean  that  when  Mr.  Rockefeller  sold  his  Stand- 
ard Oil  Trust,  and  Mr.  Morgan  his  Steel  Trust,  and  Mr. 
Vanderbilt  his  Railway  Trust  to  Uncle  Sam,  that  those 
three  gentlemen  would  have  in  their  hands  funds  enough  to 
give  them  the  control  of  the  whole  of  the  remaining  industries 
in  the  United  States  that  had  not  been  nationalized.  Those 
three  men  could — and  not  only  could  but  undoubtedly  would 
— expropriate  every  last  one  of  the  smaller  capitalists  whoso 
business  had  not  been  sufficiently  trustified  to  make  the 
Public  Ownership  people  think  that  it  was  necessary  to 
nationalize  them. 

Hence  I  declare  that  Public  Ownership  is  a  poor  platform 


The  Fallacy  of  Public  Ownership.  179 

politically  because  it  fails  to  hold  up  any  great  ideal  to 
arouse  the  enthusiasm  of  the  people.  It  is  a  poor  platform 
economically,  because  it  would  fail  to  answer  the  unemployed 
problem,  and  moreover,  it  could  not  possibly  be  put  in 
operation  without  causing  a  social  revolution.  It  is  a  poor 
platform  ethically  becauses  it  recognizes  the  right  of  a  class, 
and  a  class  no  better  because  somewhat  smaller  than  the 
present  capitalist  class,  to  live  off  the  fruits  of  the  toil  of 
another  class. 


180  lWilshiee  Ediioeials. 


COFFEE,  CURRANTS  AND  ORANGES 

AS  a  very  tangible  evidence  of  the  inability  of  society  to 
distribute  the  wealth  that  is  produced  under  our  pres- 
ent competitive  system,  it  is  interesting  to  note  the 
overproduction  of  three  great  staple  products,  viz. :  coffee  in 
Brazil,  currants  in  Greece,  and  oranges  in  California. 

Ordinary  agricultural  products,  such  as  wheat  or  corn, 
which  are  planted  from  year  to  year,  can  be  restricted  in  pro- 
duction when  the  price  falls  too  low  by  the  simple  process  of 
refraining  from  planting.  But  with  a  crop  like  oranges, 
growing  in  orchards  requiring  great  expense  in  the  planting 
and  culture  for  years  before  maturity,  it  is  self-evident  that 
one  or  two  years  of  low  prices  will  not  incite  the  growers  to 
lose  all  the  money  invested  by  abandoning  their  orchards.  The 
same  applies  to  the  coffee  plantations  and  currant  vineyards. 
It  is  to  be  remembered  that  an  orchard  neglected  goes  to  ruin. 
Hence  when  overproduction  ensues  in  crops  of  this  nature  the 
planter  is  face  to  face  with  a  very  serious  problem.  He  must 
go  to  the  expense  of  taking  care  of  his  orchard  and  he  has  a 
crop  forced  on  his  hands  which  he  cannot  dispose  of. 

From  the  following  item,  taken  from  the  New  York  Com- 
mercial of  recent  date,  it  will  be  seen  the  conditions  m  Brazil 
are  so  desperate  that  the  Government  is  proposing  to  destroy 
one-fifth  of  the  crop : 

The  forty-fifth  annual  report  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  for  the 
official  year  1902-3  was  made  public  yesterday.  The  proceedings  of 
the  Chamber  for  the  year  ending  April  30,  1903,  together  with  the 
roll  of  members,  officers  and  committees,  constitution  and  by-laws, 
comprise  the  first  part  of  the  volume.  The  second  part  contains 
trade  reviews  and  statistical  statements  of  trade  and  finance. 

The  report  says:  "The  coffee  markets  of  the  world  have  been 
overshadowed  by  the  enormous  yield  of  the  Brazilian  crop,  which 
has  been  of  increasing  rather  than  of  diminishing  proportions,  and 
has  afforded  very  little  opportunity  for  the  development  of  bullish 
features.  The  crop  of  1901-1902  was  more  than  the  whole  world's 
yearly  consumption,  and  this  was  followed  by  a  crop  that  very 
nearly  equaled  it  in  size,  while  the  present  prospect  is  that  the 
crop  due  July  1  will  exceed  all  its  predecessors^  the  estimates  fore- 
shadowing a  production  of  16,000,000  bags, 


Coffee,  Currants  and  Oranges.  181 

"This  enormous  expansion  is  the  result  of  the  plan  of  agricultural 
development  adopted  several  years  ago,  and  which  resulted  in  con- 
verting a  large  acreage  of  wild  land  into  coffee  plantations.  The 
new  trees,  which  require  three  years  to  mature,  have  gradually 
swelled  the  proportions  of  the  crop,  until  now  planters  are  just  as 
anxious  to  restrict  the  yield,  and  various  plans  have  been  discussed, 
but  the  only  one  that  has  in  any  way  materialized  is  the  tax  in 
kind  levied  in  the  State  of  San  Paulo,  which  is  to  go  in  operation 
July  1 ;  under  the  provisions  of  this  law  planters  will  be  required  to 
hand  over  to  the  Government  20  per  cent,  of  their  shipments. 

"Thus,  if  an  order  for  1,000  bags  is  received,  the  planter  will  be 
required  to  send  to  the  Government  agent  200  bags  to  be  destroyed, 
that  is,  burned  up.  It  is  said  that  this  measure  cannot  be  practi- 
cally carried  out,  and  that  it  will  fail,  especially  as  it  is  to  be  en- 
forced in  only  one  of  the  five  coffee-growing  States.  During  the 
month  of  August  a  New  York  syndicate,  that  had  a  large  specu- 
lative interest  in  the  market,  endeavored  to  advance  prices  by 
manipulation,  but  although  they  were  aided  by  a  temporary  drought 
and  a  light  frost,  they  relinquished  the  contract." 

In  Greece,  where  there  is  an  overproduction  of  currants — it 
may  be  said  the  currants  of  commerce  are  not  currants  in  the 
American  sense  of  the  word,  but  are  a  small  grape,  grown  upon 
a  vine  like  any  other  grape — the  Government  is  also  arranging 
to  have  part  of  the  crop  destroyed  and  passing  strict  laws 
against  the  further  extension  of  planting.  In  California  the 
orange  growers  are  not  sufficiently  organized  as  yet  to  have 
part  of  the  oranges  destroyed  in  order  to  be  able  to  sell  the 
remainder  at  a  living  profit,  but  there  is  no  question  but  this 
is  what  must  be  done  ultimately.  The  price  of  the  surplus 
determines  the  price  of  the  whole.  If  the  surplus  sells  at  a 
loss,  the  whole  crop  sells  at  a  loss.  If,  for  instance,  there  are 
a  million  boxes  of  oranges  for  sale,  and  there  is  a  demand  for 
only  900,000,  then  the  extra  hundred  thousand  must  be 
slaughtered  at  any  price,  and  the  price  upon  this  hundred 
thousand  will  make  the  price  for  the  whole  million.  It  is  evi- 
dent, therefore,  there  being  a  market  for  900,000,  that  it  is 
better  to  destroy  the  100,000  and  get  a  living  price  for  the  re- 
maining 900,000  than  to  try  and  sell  the  whole  million  at  a 
loss.  The  total  returns  to  trie  growers  for  the  900,000  boxes  at 
a  high  price,  will  be  much  better  than  for  the  million  boxes  at 
a  low  price. 

The  problem  the  California  growers  have  to  solve,  how- 
ever, is  how  shall  the  growers  of  the  100,000  boxes  which 
would  be   destroyed,  be   compensated.     To-day  this   would 


182  Wilshire  Editorials. 

necessitate  a  close  organization  of  the  growers,  and  in  fact 
such  a  compact  organization  that  it  is  very  problematical 
whether  it  can  yet  be  formed.  The  growers  have  not  had 
enough  discipline  yet. 

Of  course  all  this  discussion  about  destroying  the  fruits  of 
the  earth  when  so  many  people  need  them,  would  seem  ab- 
surd if  it  be  not  always  remembered  that  we  are  living  under 
an  absurd  system.  Here  we  have  the  earth  so  prolific  that 
we  are  actually  threatened  with  starvation  unless  we  destroy 
some  of  the  food  which  we  have  produced.  When  we  abolish 
our  competitive  system  and  introduce  a  co-operative  system 
of  distribution,  we  will  never  raise  more  than  we  need,  be- 
cause production  will  be  systematically  planned;  and  if  at 
any  time  we  find  that  more  labor  is  directed  toward  the  pro- 
duction of  a  certain  commodity  than  is  needed,  it  will  mean 
either  a  reduction  in  the  hours  of  labor  or  the  transfer  of  labor 
to  some  other  industry.  To-day  our  competitive  wage  system 
so  limits  the  effective  demand  of  the  people  that  it  is  folly  for 
us  to  expect  consumption  to  keep  up  with  production. 


Feudalism  Vs.  Capitalism  in  Russia.  183 


FEUDALISM  VERSUS  CAPITALISM  IN 
RUSSIA 

THE  time  is  ripe  for  Capitalism  in  Russia  to  displace 
feudalism.  Her  industry  is  now  far  enough  advanced 
to  absolutely  require  Capitalism  for  further  develop- 
ment, but  hardly  far  enough  advanced  to  require  Socialism. 

Feudalism  was  good  enough  for  society  when  there  were  no 
machinery,  no  railroads,  no  factories ;  but  with  the  growth  of 
capital  as  the  result  of  the  invention  and  use  of  the  steam 
engine  and  labor  saving  devices,  Capitalism  has  developed,  and 
naturally  capitalists.  The  capitalistic  class  in  Russia  is  a 
comparatively  new  class  of  men.  The  old  ruling  class,  the 
nobility,  the  land-owning  class,  are  now  sneering  and  looking 
down  upon  them.  Finally,  however,  when  the  value  of  capital 
becomes  more  weighty  than  the  value  of  land,  the  capitalists 
of  Russia  will  dominate  the  land  owners,  and  capitalism  sup- 
plant feudalism  just  as  it  has  done  in  the  rest  of  Europe. 

However,  that  the  Russian  government  does  not  foresee  nor 
understand  all  this,  is  certain.  For  instance,  such  a  little 
event  as  the  following  chronicled  recently  in  the  press  is  sug- 
gestive : 

The  Communal  Court  at  Widzewo  has  ordered  the  Messrs.  Coates, 
thread  manufacturers,  to  pay  their  800  employees  for  the  time  they 
have  lost  since  December  30,  when  the  factory  was  closed,  until 
to-day. 

The  Court  held  that  the  plea  offered  by  the  manufecturers  for 
closing  their  factory,  that  there  was  a  scarcity  of  coal,  was  insuffi- 
cient reason  for  shutting  down  their  works,  as  coal  was  obtainable 
at  high  prices. 

It  seems  to  that  feudalistic  court  of  Widzewo  that  Coates  & 
Co.  ought  to  run  their  factory  whether  they  make  money  or 
not,  merely  to  keep  their  men  employed  and  to  avoid  any 
disturbance  to  society.  The  mere  fact  that  coal  is  high  in 
price  argues  nothing  to  the  court.  The  bankruptcy  of 
capitalists  like  Coates  &  Co.  is  of  no  moment  to  it  compared 
with  the  bankruptcy  of  the  feudal  system.    In  the  feudal  re- 


184  Wilshire  Editorials. 

gime  there  was  no  such  thing  as  people  starving  as  long  as 
there  was  food.  Starvation  then  came  from  famine  and  un- 
der-production. To-day  starvation  comes  from  people  being 
out  of  work  merely  because  capitalists  cannot  make  profits  out 
of  hiring  them.  Such  a  condition  is  quite  incapable  of  being 
explained  to  one  who  entertains  the  feudal  notion  of  things  as 
does  the  Eussian  Government. 

When  the  capitalist  class  supplants  the  land-owning  class 
as  the  controlling  force  in  politics,  then  there  will  be  no  more 
such  absurdity  as  ordering  the  capitalist  to  run  his  mill  when 
he  cannot  run  it  without  losing  money.  In  other  words,  the 
capitalist  government  will  understand  what  is  possible  in  the 
capitalist  business,  whereas  the  present  feudal  government  of 
the  Czar  does  not  understand  it.  However,  the  mere  under- 
standing by  a  capitalist  government  of  the  impossibility  of 
employing  labor  at  any  and  all  times  under  the  capitalist 
system,  does  not  go  very  far  toward  feeding  the  unem- 
ployed laborer.  When  he,  too,  understands  this  impossibility, 
he  will  be  the  first  in  demanding  the  abolition  of  the  capitalist 
system  itself  and  the  inauguration  of  the  Socialist  system. 
This  is  what  is  now  happening  in  America  and  is  the  logical 
sequence  of  events  in  Eussia. 

It  might  be  cited  that  the  interference  of  President  Eoose- 
velt  between  the  strikers  and  the  coal  operators  was  only  the 
same  as  that  the  Czar  exercised  in  his  interference  with  the 
strikers  and  the  Coates  Co.  The  essential  difference,  however, 
is  in  the  fact  that  in  one  case  the  Czar  ordered  the  capitalists 
to  give  work,  whereas  Eoosevelt  merely  suggested  that  it  be 
done. 

Eoosevelt  has  no  power  to  do  anything  beyond  mere  sug- 
gestion. The  assumption  that  the  President  is  the  head  of  the 
nation  is  quite  absurd.  The  time  when  our  political  officers 
controlled  things  has  passed  coincident  with  the  appearance  of 
our  Captains  of  Industry.  They  are  the  men  who  are  now  our 
real  political  leaders. 

To-day  the  man  that  can  give  valid  orders  that  workmen 
shall  or  shall  not  go  to  work  in  America,  as  does  the  Czar  in 
Eussia,  is  not  Eoosevelt,  he  is  the  capitalist,  the  man  who  owns 
the  machinery  of  production.  He  is  the  only  one  who  is  in  po- 
sition to  make  his  order  effective.  For  instance,  Mr.  Eoose- 
velt suggested  that  the  operators  arbitrate,  whereas  Mr.  Corey, 


Feudalism  Vs.  Capitalism  in  Eussia.  185 

the  President  of  the  Steel  Trust,  autocratically  ordered  the 
coal  operators  to  arbitrate  with  the  miners,  saying  that  if  they 
did  not  do  so,  he  would  break  his  coal  contract. 

"The  Steel  Trust  must  have  coal,  and  you  must  pay  your 
workmen  sufficient  wages  to  get  it.  We  pay  you  enough  for 
your  coal,  and  we  will  not  allow  you  to  cut  us  off  of  coal  and 
make  us  shut  down  our  steel  mills,  in  order  that  you  can  gouge 
a  little  more  profit  out  of  your  workingmen." 

This  order  from  Corey  to  Baer  was  imperative  and  had  its 
immediate  effect  whereas  the  suggestion  from  Eoosevelt  was1 
received  with  considerable  irritation  by  many  of  the  coal  oper- 
ators who  said  the  President  had  no  right  to  interfere.  It 
was  none  of  his  business ;  but  when  Corey,  the  president  of  the 
Billion  Dollar  Steel  Trust,  spoke,  there  was  not  a  single  coal 
operator  that  dared  peep. 


186  Wilshieb  Editorials. 


AN  EASY  WAY  TO  WEALTH,  WISH  FOR  IT 

THERE  are  very  few  satisfied  in  this  world,  whether  they 
be  rich  or  poor,  although  most  of  the  poor  think  if 
they  were  only  rich,  they  would  have  no  trouble  in 
finding  the  joy  of  life. 

Inasmuch,  as  is  well  known,  1  per  cent,  of  the  population  of 
the  United  States  own  more  property  than  the  whole  of  the 
remaining  99  per  cent.,  it  is  a  one  hundred  to  one  shot  that  the 
one  who  is  reading  this  article  will  belong  to  the  99  per  cent, 
class,  and  it  is  to  him  that  I  address  myself. 

You  are  dissatisfied,  and  if  you  are  not,  you  ought  to 
be  dissatisfied  because  you  are  not  rich,  and  now  I  am  going  to 
show  you  why  you  are  poor,  and  how  to  get  rich  easily.  This 
is  not  any  programme,  such  as  is  usually  presented,  of  saving 
your  money  and  investing  it  in  a  deferred  dividend  policy  in 
Papa  McCurdy's  New  York  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Co. 

You  probably  are  either  getting  wages  or  a  salary  of  some 
sort.  I  say  this  because  most  of  the  people  who  are  poor  in 
this  country  belong  to  the  wage-earning  class.  You  are,  of 
course,  a  reader  of  the  newspapers,  and  love  to  hear  about  the 
enormous  material  prosperity  of  this  country.  For  instance,  I 
quote  the  following  from  the  morning  "Tribune"  of  October 
5th: 

"AN  ERA   OF  PROSPERITY."" 

"There  are  signs  on  every  hand  these  days  of  overflowing 
national  prosperity.  The  United  States  is  to  harvest  this 
year  the  biggest  corn  crop  it  has  ever  grown  and  the  biggest 
wheat  crop  in  its  history,  with  one  exception.  Our  exports 
and  imports  will  break  all  records.  Immigration  is  reaching 
a  new  high-water  mark.  Our  iron  and  steel  output  will  be 
the  largest  ever  known,  and  we  shall  touch  a  new  high  level 
in  coal  production.  It  was  announced  the  other  day  that 
postal  receipts  for  1904-05  had  exceeded  those  for  1903-04 
by  $10,000,000.  The  Post  Office  Department's  money-order 
business  showed  a  gain  for  the  year  of  20  per  cent. — an  un- 
erring evidence  of  widely  diffused  prosperity.     Now  come 


An  Easy  Way  to  Wealth:  Wish  for  It.        187 

Dun's  and  Bradstreet's  reports  on  commercial  failures  in  the 
United  States  for  the  first  nine  months  of  1905  to  testify 
to  steadily  improving  trade  conditions." 

There  is  no  questioning  these  statements.  That  the  nation  is 
certainly  getting  richer  is  unquestionable,  but  the  question  is 
not  about  the  nation,  but  about  you,  little  you,  are  you  getting 
richer?  The  statistics  issued  by  the  United  States  Commis- 
sioner of  Labor  show  that  during  the  last  year  wages  have  been 
practically  at  a  standstill,  although  the  cost  of  living  has 
materially  advanced.  Hence,  if  you  are  the  average  man  of 
the  wage-earning  class,  you  are  not  as  well  off  as  you  were  last 
year,  notwithstanding  the  increasing  prosperity  of  the  country. 
No  one  takes  less  wages  than  he  can  get,  or  pays  more  for  his 
beefsteak  and  his  potatoes  than  he  must.  The  condition  which 
forces  you  to  take  a  low  wage  is  that  you  know  the  job  will  be 
filled  by  some  other  man  unless  you  accept  what  is  offered,  and' 
the  condition  which  makes  you  pay  more  for  your  food  is  that 
you  go  hungry  unless  you  pay  the  price  asked. 

What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  that  you  have  no  choice  in 
the  matter  at  all.  You  have  to  accept  conditions  as  they  are, 
and  what  applies  to  you  applies  to  all  other  members  of  the 
working  class.  The  reason  wages  are  low  is  merely  because 
there  are  plenty  of  men  who  are  willing  to  accept  low  wages, 
and  if  one  refuses  to  take  what  is  offered,  he  finds  the  place 
filled  by  some  one  else  who  will  take  what  is  offered. 

It  is  competition  against  the  unemployed  man  that  makes 
wages  low,  and  unless  you  can  remedy  this  competition,  it  is 
obvious  there  is  no  way  of  your  becoming  better  off,  no  matter 
how  prosperous  the  country  may  become. 

In  other  words,  what  must  be  done  is  to  get  rid  of  the  "un- 
employed" man.  That  is  the  problem.  What  do  you  mean  by 
an  unemployed  man  ?  You  do  not  think  of  a  man  who  is  of  a 
leisure  class  and  who  does  not  work  because  he  has  an  inde- 
pendent income,  as  being  of  the  class  designated  by  the  word 
"unemployed."  Mr.  Vanderbilt's  son  or  Mr.  Rockefeller's 
son  may  be  quite  "unemployed,"  and  yet  you  do  not  feel  any 
competition  from  them.  The  unemployed  man  you  fear  is 
the  man  who  has  no  income  unless  he  is  at  work.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  if  a  man  is  hungry  and  wishes  food,  he  will 
not  stay  long  in  that  condition,  if  he  can  work  and  get  some- 
thing to  feed  himself.    A  savage  in  the  woods  will  catch  a  fish 


183  Wilshire  Editorials. 

or  shoot  a  deer,  and  thus  satisfy  his  hunger.  But  the  modern 
civilized  man  cannot  go  out  and  catch  fish  or  shoot  deer  when- 
ever he  happens  to  be  hungry.  He  must  get  food  the  way 
everyone  else  does ;  that  is,  by  earning  money.  The  only  way 
he  has  of  getting  money  is  to  sell  his  labor  to  someone  who  will 
buy  it,  and  with  the  wages  which  are  paid  him  in  exchange  for 
his  labor  he  will  buy  the  food  he  wishes.  However,  it  often 
happens  that  it  is  not  so  easy  to  find  a  man  who  wishes  to  hire 
him.  Some  political  economists  have  endeavored  to  prove  that 
somewhere  in  the  world  there  is  always  an  employer  ready  to 
hire  the  unemployed  man  if  one  only  knew  where  to  find  the 
employer.  They  make  it  appear  that  the  reason  there  is  diffi- 
culty in  getting  employment  is  solely  on  account  of  lack  of 
knowledge  of  where  work  is  in  demand.  This  is  quite  a 
mistake.  The  employer  himself  can  only  give  employment 
when  he  can  sell  what  is  produced,  and  as  the  working  class 
are  the  principal  consumers,  since  they  constitute  the  greater 
part  of  the  community,  and  as  their  powers  of  buying  are  re- 
stricted by  the  competitive  wage  system,  it  is  not  difficult  to 
see  that  the  employer  himself  has  not  an  unlimited  market 
for  his  goods,  and,  therefore,  cannot  furnish  unlimited  em- 
ployment. 

The  earth  is  so  very  productive  when  man's  labor  is  applied 
to  it  with  modern  machinery  that  it  is  very  easy  to  produce 
more  to  eat  and  more  to  wear,  that  is,  more  of  the  plain  neces- 
sities, than  man  needs  or  wants,  and  especially  is  it  easy  to 
produce  more  than  he  can  buy,  when  we  remember  that  his 
powers  of  buying  are  so  limited  by  the  Competitive  Wage 
System.  Therefore,  it  is  clear  that  the  employers  are  not  in 
control  of  the  situation,  but  can  only  hire  men  under  certain 
conditions,  viz. :  That  they  can  sell  what  is  produced.  There- 
fore, it  is  seen  that  the  Competitive  System  not  only  prevents 
you  from  getting  a  decent  wage  when  you  are  employed,  but  it 
also  makes  it  often  difficult  for  you  to  get  any  wages  at  all, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  the  employer  cannot  sell  what  is  pro- 
duced, and,  therefore,  cannot  hire  you  to  work.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  if  you  wish  to  abolish  poverty,  the  first  thing  to  do 
is  to  consider  a  method  of  abolishing  the  Competitive  System. 
However,  the  Competitive  System  does  give  us  a  method  of 
distributing  what  is  produced — although  a  very  poor  one — 
and,  therefore,  if  you  abolish  it,  you  must  be  ready  to  sub- 


An  Easy  Wat  to  Wealth  :  Wish  for  It.        189 

stitute  some  other  system  to  do  the  distributing.  The  Social- 
ists propose  that  we  substitute  the  Co-operative  System  for 
the  Competitive  System.  This  merely  means  that,  instead  of 
paying  men  upon  the  basis  of  how  little  their  labor  can  be 
bought  for,  that  they  be  paid  upon  the  basis  of  what  they  ac- 
tually produce.  To-day  the  more  a  man  produces,  the  more 
difficult  it  may  be  for  him  to  get  any  wages  at  all,  because  the 
market  may  be  flooded  with  goods,  perhaps  the  very  goods 
that  he  himself  has  produced,  and,  therefore,  he  cannot  sell 
his  labor,  owing  to  there  being  no  demand  for  his  labor.  Under 
the  Co-operative  System,  the  more  he  produces,  the  more  he 
gets,  because  goods  will  be  produced  for  consumption  and  not 
for  profit. 

To-day  if  you  are  working  in  a  shoe  factory  and  there  is  an 
over-production  of  shoes,  it  does  not  mean  that  you  get  more 
shoes  than  you  know  what  to  do  with. 

It  means  you  lose  your  job.  It  means  there  are  more  shoes 
produced  than  can  be  sold,  and,  therefore,  you  do  not  get  any 
shoes  at  all,  for,  naturally,  you  do  not  get  money  to  buy  shoe? 
when  you  are  out  of  work.  If  we  had  Socialism  and  there  was 
over-production  of  goods,  the  hours  of  labor  would  be  reduced 
to  make  consumption  equal  demand. 

One  essential  point  in  connection  with  the  Co-operative 
System  which  I  have  omitted  to  state,  and  which  is  a  necessary 
part  for  a  success  of  its  operations,  is  the  Public  Ownership 
of  the  Means  of  Production.  You  have  heard  a  great  deal  re- 
cently of  Public  Ownership.  No  doubt  it  has  puzzled  many 
people  to  understand  how  it  is  that  Public  Ownership  is  to  be 
of  any  benefit  to  the  working  man,  and  especially  to  the  unem- 
ployed man.  One  reason  of  this  lack  of  ability  to  understand 
the  advantage  of  Public  Ownership  is  that  it  usually  is  not 
clearly  explained.  We  to-day  have  Public  Ownership  of  the 
Post  Office,  and  yet  that  does  not  mean  that  a  man  can  get 
employed  at  the  Post  Office  at  good  wages  merely  because  he 
is  out  of  a  job  and  the  Post  Office  belongs  to  the  Government. 
But  if  we  had  the  Co-operative  System  co-joined  with  Public 
Ownership  it  would  mean  that  any  one  wanting  food  or 
clothing,  or  any  other  form  of  wealth,  would  be  at  liberty  to 
demand  work  from  the  community,  and  would  be  sure  of  not 
only  getting  work,  but  also  of  getting  the  full  value  of  the 
work  he  might  perform.    He  would  be  sure  of  this  because  it 


190  Wilshire  Editorials. 

would  be  simply  utilizing  for  his  own  benefit  the  machinery  of 
production,  of  which  he  himself  would  be  one  of  the  joint 
owners.  Just  exactly  as  the  savage  went  out  with  his  bow  and 
arrow  and  shot  the  deer  for  his  dinner.  The  bow  and  arrow 
were  his  "means  of  production,"  and  the  earth  upon  which  the 
deer  fed  was  also  his  without  the  asking  of  any  permission 
from  any  landlord.  However,  although  the  savage  had  a  com- 
plete ownership  of  his  means  of  production,  viz.,  his  bow  and 
arrow,  yet  he  could  only  gain  a  most  meagre  living  by  the 
most  strenuous  work,  because  a  bow  and  arrow  are  very  poor 
tools  of  production  compared  with  the  modern  machinery  of 
to-day. 

To-day  the  workingman,  by  his  knowledge  of  labor-sav- 
ing machinery,  of  steam  and  electricity,  can  produce  a  hun- 
dred times  as  much  as  the  man  in  the  days  of  savagery  and 
the  bow  and  arrow,  but  the  trouble  is  that,  with  this  increased 
production,  he  has  lost  the  ownership  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction. 

The  tools  of  production  to-day  are  the  railroad,  the  grain 
elevator,  the  Steel  Trust,  the  Sugar  Trust,  the  Oil  Trust,  and 
various  other  great  combinations  of  capital.  The  workingman 
cannot  use  machinery  without  first  getting  the  permission  of  a 
capitalist  owner,  and  getting  that  permission  means  being 
hired  by  the  capitalists  when  they  find  that  they  can  buy  his 
labor  and  sell  the  product  at  a  profit.  Even  though  a  rail- 
road or  a  shoe  factory  were  given  to  the  individual  working- 
man,  absolutely  free  of  cost,  he  would  find  it  useless  to  him  if 
he  had  to  work  it  independently,  inasmuch  as  the  machinery 
of  to-day  requires  collective  management  upon  a  large  scale. 
If  the  workingman  wishes  to  be  able  to  use  the  modern  tools 
of  production,  it  is  evident  that  not  only  must  he  own  them  in 
order  to  be  free  to  use  them,  but  also  that  he  must  organize 
with  other  workingmen  upon  a  large  scale  in  order  to  be  able 
to  use  them.  Capitalism  has  not  only  developed  the  tools,  but 
has  also  developed  the  organization  of  workingmen  to  operate 
the  tools;  but  it  has  not  developed  a  system  to  equitably 
distribute  what  is  produced.  The  only  system  which  can 
properly  and  equitably  distribute  is,  as  has  been  heretofore 
stated,  the  Co-operative  System.  In  order  that  the  working- 
man  may  not  only  be  able  to  operate  the  modern  tools  of  pro- 
duction co-operatively,  but  to  have  the  free  use  of  these  tools, 


An  Easy  Way  to  Wealth:  Wish  for  It.        191 

he  must  be  the  owner  of  the  tools,  and  he  must  be  organized 
with  his  fellow  workingmen. 

To  go  back  to  the  illustration  of  the  savage.  Suppose  there 
were  two  savages,  and  that  the  bow  was  so  large  that  it  re- 
quired both  men  to  bend  it,  and  that  the  ownership  of  the  bow 
vested  in  one  of  the  men.  It  is  obvious  that  the  other  man 
would  not  only  have  to  get  the  permission  of  the  owner  of  the 
bow,  but,  before  he  could  use  it,  he  would  also  have  to  get 
his  help  to  bend  it.  Therefore,  if  he  wished  to  be  on  the  safe 
side  regarding  his  supply  of  food,  he  would  form  a  com- 
bination with  the  other  savage,  so  that  they  would  own  the 
bow  in  partnership,  and  would  agree  to  work  it  jointly  and 
co-operatively  and  divide  whatever  game  might  be  killed 
by  it. 

Similarly  to-day,  in  order  for  the  workingman  to  be  sure  of 
getting  his  food  and  clothing  and  other  goods  that  he  wishes, 
he  must  own  the  machinery  of  production,  and  must  be  or- 
ganized to  operate  the  machinery  on  the  co-operative  plan. 

The  only  feasible  way  for  such  machinery  as  railroads  and 
other  great  modern  tools  of  production  to  be  owned  publicly  is 
through  the  medium  of  government  ownership.  Public  own- 
ership is  not  such  a  difficult  proposition  to  work  out  practically 
as  it  might  seem  to  one  who  takes  up  the  idea  for  the  first  time. 
Public  ownership  of  the  means  of  production  is  already  in 
practical  operation  in  a  limited  way  in  this  country^  as  well 
as  in  foreign  countries.  We  have  the  government  ownership  of 
the  Post  Office,  and  municipal  ownership  of  gas  and  water 
works,  and  a  few  other  such  utilities.  In  Europe  many  cities 
own  and  operate  their  own  street  cars  and  telephone  lines; 
some  cities  run  public  bakeries,  and,  in  fact,  there  is  hardly  any 
single  operation  which  is  not  carried  on  in  one  way  or  another 
in  some  part  of  the  world  by  the  government.  There  is  little 
difficulty  in  showing  that  there  is  no  machinery  which  cannot 
be  operated  by  the  government.  The  difficulty  is  to  convince 
the  people  of  the  advantage  in  the  government  taking  over  the 
ownership  and  management  of  the  public  utilities,  and  it  is 
indeed  a  very  difficult  task  to  show  that  there  is  any  good  in 
government  ownership  in  itself.  For  instance,  the  English 
Government  owns  the  telegraph  system,  whereas  in  this 
country  it  is  in  private  hands,  and  yet  the  mere  fact  of  public 
ownership  in  England  of  the  telegraph  system  has  not  made 


192  Wilshire  Editorials. 

poverty  any  less  prevalent  there  than  it  is  in  this  country, 
where  there  is  private  ownership  of  the  telegraph  system.  The 
point  that  is  continually  being  missed  is  that  it  is  not  merely 
government  ownership  in  itself  that  is  to  solve  the  problem  of 
poverty;  it  is  the  Co-operative  System  that  is  to  do  it,  and 
public  ownership  is  the  necessary  basis  for  the  Co-operative 
System.  In  other  words,  public  ownership  is  distinctly  a 
means  and  not  an  end.  It  is  clear  that  as  long  as  Mr.  Rocke- 
feller and  other  capitalists  continue  in  the  ownership  of  rail- 
roads and  the  great  trusts  of  this  country,  there  can  be  no 
co-operative  system.  They  as  owners,  could  refuse  to  allow 
the  workingmen  to  use  these  necessary  means  of  production, 
and  that  would  end  the  dream  of  co-operative  distribution,  for, 
without  the  machinery,  there  would  be  nothing  produced  to 
distribute. 

I  promised  in  the  beginning  of  this  article  to  show  you  how 
to  get  rich  without  any  great  exertion,  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
if  you  have  followed  my  argument  you  will  see  that  I  have 
fulfilled  my  promise. 

Labor  and  capital  in  this  country  can  obviously  produce 
much  more  food  and  clothing  and  other  ordinary  necessities 
of  life  than  the  public  can  ever  consume.  I  say  obviously,  be- 
cause, a  hundred  years  ago,  before  we  had  much  of  any  ma- 
chinery, everyone  in  the  country  had  a  fair  living,  and  as  with 
the  use  of  present  machinery  labor  is  at  least  twenty  times  as 
effective  as  it  was  before  we  had  the  machinery,  it  may  be 
safely  said  that  it  will  require  only  one-twentieth  the  work  per 
capita  required  to  produce  the  same  quantities  per  capita  of 
goods  a  hundred  years  ago. 

The  wealth  of  the  country  is  here  at  the  disposal  of  the 
voters,  and,  as  the  working  class  constitute  the  vast  majority 
of  the  voters,  it  is  merely  a  question  of  them  realizing  how  to 
vote  in  order  for  them  to  inaugurate  the  Socialist  System.  Let 
them  support  the  only  party  which  demands  the  public  owner- 
ship of  the  means  of  production  and  the  co-operative  system  of 
distribution.  This  party  is  the  Socialist  Party.  As  long  as  we 
have  our  Competitive  System,  we  must  necessarily  have  the 
unemployed  man.  To  get  rid  of  the  unemployed  man  we  must 
place  the  ownership  of  the  tools  of  production  of  the  country 
in  his  hands  and  let  him  produce  for  himself  what  he  wishes. 
With  modern  machinery  this  can  only  be  done  through  collec- 


An  Easy  Way  to  Wealth:  Wish  for  It.        193 

tive  action  of  the  people,  viz.:  public  ownership  and  the 
establishment  of  the  Co-operative  Commonwealth. 

It  seems  to  me  that  I  have  given  a  very  straight  statement  of 
how  we  may  abolish  poverty,  how  we  may  acquire  wealth  with 
practically  no  exertion.  We  simply  have  to  wish  for  the  earth 
in  order  to  get  it,  and  there  is  but  one  way  to  wish  effectively 
for  it ;  that  is  to  vote  for  the  Socialist  Party. 

Let  the  Nation  Own  the  Eesources  of  the  Earth,  the  land, 
the  machinery,  the  water  power,  the  coal  mines ;  let  us  make 
these  natural  powers  work  for  us  and  produce  the  wealth  that 
we  all  wish,  and  let  us  distribute  that  wealth  co-operatively  to 
ourselves. 


194  Wilshike   Editorials. 


THE  IMPOSSIBILITY  OF  A  RUSSIAN  SOCIAL 
REVOLUTION 

THE  seizure  of  the  Potemkin,  the  Russian  battleship,  by 
mutineers,  and  the  cruising  of  it  for  ten  days  on  the 
Black  Sea,  under  the  red  flag  of  revolution,  and  its 
final  surrender  to  Roumania,  was  somewhat  more  dramatic 
than  significant. 

The  sailors  did  not  revolt  because  of  any  abstract  love  of 
liberty  and  humanity,  but  because  they  were  fed  on  rotten 
food,  the  result  of  their  captain  having  grafted  on  the  food 
contract. 

The  terrible  economic  conditions  in  Russia,  combined  with 
the  supreme  political  power  being  in  the  hands  of  a  weak, 
imbecile  Czar,  have  naturally  developed  a  large  number  of 
people  with  strong  leanings  to  Socialism.  Hence,  when  the 
mutiny  on  account  of  bad  food  occurred,  the  revolt  not  un- 
naturally partook  of  the  appearance  of  a  revolution.  That 
the  mutineers  were  scientific  Socialists,  bent  upon  organizing 
a  social  revolution  in  Russia,  with  a  deliberately  planned 
mutiny,  is  impossible. 

As  we  have  said  before,  we  do  not  think  a  social  revolution 
possible  in  Russia  within  the  next  twenty  years,  no  matter 
how  bad  conditions  may  be.  That  the  Czar  may  be  deposed 
and  in  fact  the  whole  Romanoff  family  driven  from  Russia, 
we  admit  is  extremely  likely.  There  may  be  even  a  consider- 
able measure  of  nationalization  of  the  land  of  the  aristocracy, 
but  this  is  as  far  as  Socialism  can  go  now  in  Russia.  The 
establishment  of  a  limited  monarchy,  let  alone  establishing  a 
republic,  seems  to  us  almost  impossible. 

When  peace  is  declared  with  Japan,  and  the  army  returns 
from  Manchuria,  no  doubt  Linevitch,  or  some  other  general, 
will  make  himself  a  dictator.  There  will  be  a  general  house- 
cleaning  of  the  corrupt  bureaucracy,  and  a  man  like  De  Witte 
will  be  put  at  the  head  of  a  general  industrial  reorganization, 
and,  after  a  long  period  of  turmoil,  Russia  will  proceed  upon 


Impossibility  of  a  Russian  Social  Revolution.     195 

its  inevitable  course  of  economic  evolution  under  the  present 
competitive  system  of  private  property  until  she  has  devel- 
oped sufficiently  to  make  the  taking  over  of  the  machinery  of 
production  not  only  practicable  and  desirable,  but  absolutely 
necessary. 

Socialism  is  impossible  in  Russia  at  present  except  on  one 
condition.  The  only  thing  that  could  possibly  make  Russia 
to-day  a  Socialist  nation  would  be  a  social  revolution  in  West- 
ern Europe,  which,  of  course,  may  occur  any  day,  since  the 
economic  conditions  are  already  sufficiently  ripened  and  the 
whole  proletariat  is  impregnated  with  the  Socialist  ideal. 

The  following  from  the  Review  of  Reviews  throws  light 
upon  the  question  of  a  peasant  revolt  in  Russia: 

"A  careful  study  of  the  entire  peasant  agrarian  movement 
in  Russia  appears  in  the  Russhiya  Vyedomosti,  by  Dr.  Mak- 
simovich,  a  condensation  of  which  is  made  by  the  monthly 
Oorazovanie.    We  summarize  the  version  of  the  latter. 

"The  general  features  of  the  agrarian  disorders  have  been 
practically  the  same  all  over  the  country,  we  are  informed. 

"The  peasants  usually  informed  the  landlord  in  advance 
as  to  their  proposed  visit  to  his  estate.  In  some  cases  a  com- 
mittee of  peasants  came  and  inspected  the  place  and  then 
announced  that  the  peasants  would  come  on  a  certain  day. 
At  the  appointed  time  a  stack  of  straw  was  set  on  fire,  a 
bonfire  built,  or  merely  a  large  bundle  of  straw  tied  to  a  long 
pole  and  ignited,  and  at  this  signal  a  crowd  of  peasants 
gathered  with  their  wagons.  In  some  cases  there  were  from 
five  hundred  to  seven  hundred  of  the  latter.  In  one  case  (at 
Romano vka)  the  signal  was  given  by  sounding  the  fire  alarm. 
The  assembled  peasants  advanced  on  the  estate,  discharged 
guns  at  their  approach,  broke  the  locks  of  the  granaries,  loaded 
the  grain  on  their  wagons,  and  departed.  The  presence  of 
the  estate  owner,  or  of  the  manager,  did  not  at  all  embarrass 
them.  They  permitted  him  to  witness  the  proceedings,  and 
made  no  attempt  to  drive  him  off  the  place,  yet  they  offered 
no  explanations  to  him.  They  pillaged  mainly  the  grain 
stores;  other  farm  products  were  taken  by  them  only  in  rare 
instances.  Hence,  they  seldom  disturbed  any  of  the  other 
farm  buildings.  In  Prilyepy,  the  peasants  carried  off  the 
grains,  but  did  not  molest  the  sugar  refinery;  in  Petrovsk, 
they  did  likewise  without  disturbing  the  whiskey  distillery. 


196  Wilshire   Editorials. 

They  made  no  attempt,  as  a  rule,  to  enter  the  dwellings. 
They  demanded  no  money,  with  perhaps  one  exception.  No 
violence  was  attempted,  although  in  Vitich  the  local  con- 
stable received  a  slight  wound.  As  a  rule,  the  peasants  be- 
haved with  moderation.  The  same  attitude  was  observed  to- 
ward the  government  liquor  stores.  The  peasants  came  there 
at  night,  previous  to  the  descent  on  some  estate,  and  de- 
manded that  the  store  be  opened.  After  drinking  whiskey, 
always  in  great  quantities,  they  paid  for  it  and  departed. 
No  violence  was  attempted  against  schools  and  hospitals,  so 
that  in  a  number  of  cases  the  estate-owners  sought  refuge  in 
schoolhouses.  The  pillage  was  participated  in  by  entire  vil- 
lages— men,  women  and  youths.  Among  those  arrested  for 
robbery  and  confined  in  the  prison  at  Syevsk  there  is  a  blind 
beggar.  His  fellow-villagers  had  supplied  him  with  a  horse 
and  wagon  and  helped  him  to  load  it  with  grain.  In  some 
cases  only  a  part  of  the  peasants  in  the  village  engaged  in 
the  pillaging  of  some  estate,  but  later  the  remaining  peasants, 
tempted  by  the  example  of  their  fellow-villagers,  made  a 
similar  descent  on  some  other  estate.  There  was  no  systematic 
apportionment  of  estates  among  the  different  villagers,  who 
at  times  came  from  distant  places.  It  is  stated  that  single 
peasants  were  compelled  to  join  these  pillaging  expeditions 
under  threat  of  violence,  yet  it  is  difficult  to  determine 
whether  this  was  really  so. 

"As  stated  above,  the  peasants  endeavored,  on  the  whole, 
not  to  exceed  certain  limits,  though  they  were  not  always 
successful  in  this.  At  times,  under  the  stress  of  excitement, 
or  under  the  influence  of  liquor,  moderation  was  thrown  to 
the  winds  and  riot  ran  its  course  unchecked.  In  Glamazdin, 
the  peasants  not  only  pillaged  the  granaries,  but  set  fire  to 
the  dwellings,  outbuildings  and  distillery.  The  same  fate 
overtook  the  distillery  at  Khinel,  and  the  sugar  refinery  at 
Mikhailovsk.  The  riot  at  Khinel  assumed  a  terrifying  char- 
acter. The  mob,  mad  with  drink,  destroyed  everything  in 
their  reach.  The  effect  of  these  disorders  on  the  estate-owners 
may  be  easily  imagined.  No  one  dreamed  of  resistance.  With 
the  arrival  of  larger  bodies  of  troops  the  disorder  ceased,  but 
many  disquieting  rumors  still  persist.  The  peasants  are  said 
to  have  openly  declared  that  they  would  not  permit  any 
spring  operations  on  estate  lands,  and  it  is  also  stated  that 


Impossibility  of  a  Russian  Social  Revolution.     197 

they  are  trying  to  secure  money  in  advance  on  work  to  be 
performed  later  in  the  season,  boasting,  meanwhile,  that  they 
would  make  no  attempt  to  do  that  work. 

"The  causes  of  the  disorders,  both  general  and  local,  are 
quite  complex,  and  are  difficult  to  determine  in  all  cases. 
One  of  them,  indirectly  is  the  war.  The  mobilization  in  the 
district  of  Dmitriev  caused  marked  discontent  among  the 
peasants.  Moreover,  there  are  many  wounded  there  returned 
from  the  Far  East,  who  are  in  a  miserable  condition  and 
desperate  over  their  fate.  Finally,  something  should  be  at- 
tributed to  the  belief  prevailing  among  the  peasantry  that 
but  few  soldiers  now  remain  in  European  Russia,  for  'they 
are  all  in  the  Far  East/ 

WHY  THESE  MOVEMENTS  FAIL. 

"One  of  the  questions  that  must  have  occurred  to  every 
one  who  has  given  any  thought  to  these  peasant  movements 
is  why  we  do  not  see  more  far-reaching  consequences  from 
them.  Mr.  Wolf  Dohm,  writing  in  the  Hilfe  (Berlin),  points 
out  that  the  occurrences  in  one  place  have  ceased  being  news 
before  reaching  the  next  one. 

"This  became  strikingly  manifest  during  the  disorders  in 
Gomel.  The  property  where  I  was  stationed  at  that  time  is 
situated  about  one  hundred  kilometers  from  the  town,  a 
6teamer  running  daily  up  the  river,  and  the  steamboat  office 
is  thirty  kilometers  from  the  estate.  Yet  the  news  about 
the  massacre  reached  us  first  after  a  period  of  three  to  four 
weeks.  Who  is  going  to  care  any  more  about  it  after  such  a 
long  time  ?  People  shake  their  heads,  comment  and  criticize, 
but  for  prompt  action  the  urgent  necessity  of  the  moment  is 
gone.  The  impulse  dies  before  it  has  been  awakened.  It  is 
necessary  to  keep  in  memory  the  fact  that  80  per  cent  of  the 
whole  population  in  Russia  is  scattered  over  the  vast  plains 
in  little  villages  protected  by  the  popes  (priests).  If  there 
is  revolution  in  Paris,  it  is  revolution  in  France.  Not  so  in 
Russia.  The  cries  of  the  flogged  and  massacred  people  in 
the  cities  are  not  heard  on  the  immense  plains. 

"The  Russian  peasant,  the  writer  declares,  is  pious,  patrio- 
tic, and  devoted  to  the  Czar.  When  the  fall  comes  and  the 
harvest  has  been  gathered  in,  the  functionaries  of  the  gov- 
ernment arrive  and  rob  him  of  the  toilsome  profit  of  his  work. 


198  Wilshire   Editorials. 

During  the  winter  he  suffers,  consequently,  great  need.  Yet 
the  peasant  is  patient  and  hungers  through  the  winter  with 
his  cattle.  In  the  spring,  weakened  by  the  long  fasting, 
it  often  happens  that  the  cattle  fall  to  the  ground  and  die 
on  the  green  meadow.  The  peasant  suffers  thus  because  he  is 
by  no  means  able  to  see  the  connection. 

"And  how  can  he  ?  In  this  century  of  public-school  educa- 
tion anybody  would  realize  that  the  government  is  the  cause 
of  the  evil.  The  Russian  peasant  thinks  different.  No,  he 
says,  the  Czar  and  the  government  are  not  guilty.  Guilty 
are  the  tax  officers,  because  they  steal ;  guilty  are  the  judges, 
because  they  are  bribed;  guilty  are,  above  all,  the  landlords, 
because  they  have  much  land,  much  corn,  and  many  horses. 
If  we  only  had  more  land,  it  would  be  different;  but  why 
do  we  not  possess  more  land?  The  country  is  great,  but 
it  is  divided  since  many  years.  Our  children  must  go  to  the 
factories  or  emigrate  to  Siberia  or  the  West.  Land  is  too 
small,  harvest  is  too  small,  and  if  I  did  not  work  in  the 
woods  during  the  winter  I  could  not  support  my  family. 
And  why  is  this  ?  Did  not  Czar  Alexander  give  us  the  land, 
and  did  he  not  take  it  from  the  landlords?  Why  does  not 
Czar  Nicholas  do  the  same?  Whence  does  the  landlord  get 
the  land?  Land  belongs. naturally  to  man,  and  not  to  land- 
lords. Does  my  field  belong  to  me?  No,  it  is  county  prop- 
erty.    But  why  does  the  landlord  own  his  land? 

"Thus  reasons  the  Russian  peasant.  When  he  is  hungry, 
or  when  the  military  commission  levies  all  men  able  to  work 
and  nobody  is  left  to  cultivate  the  land,  he  does  not  raise  the 
cry  of  the  intelligent  laborers  for  a  constitution,  but  calls 
for — bread.  The  peasant  goes  now  to  the  property  of  the 
landlord  and  demands  corn.  If  it  happens  to  be  no  holiday 
and  the  peasant  is  sober,  he  is  satisfied  if  he  gets  it  and  re- 
turns home.  Furthermore, .  much  will  depend  on  how  the 
new  military  commission  will  go  to  work.  If  they  only  take 
a  few  out  of  every  village,  the  writer  claims,  everything  will 
remain  quiet.  If  they  take  many,  the  peasant  will  say,  and 
we  hear  it  already,  If  the  government  takes  our  men,  we 
will  take  corn  from  the  landlords,  for  how  shall  our  wives 
and  our  children  live? 

"Here  is  indeed  the  key  to  the  great  Russian  problem.  So 
long  as  the  government  has  nothing  to  fear  from  the  peasantry, 


Impossibility  of  a  Kussian  Social  Eevolution.     199 

it  can  without  conscience  continue  the  foul  play  of  promises 
of  improvements.  This  is  the  truth,  and  it  is  serious  for 
many  that  are  ready  to  sacrifice  life  and  liberty  for  their 
country.  On  the  vast  plains  sleeps  the  future  of  Kussia — 
but  where  is  the  man  to  awaken  it  ?" 

This  fully  corroborates  the  position  Wilshire's  has  taken. 

The  peasants  cannot  successfully  revolt  because  Eussia  is 
not  sufficiently  industrially  organized  and  educated  to  be 
nationally  conscious.    It  is  a  jelly  fish. 


200  Wilshire   Editorials. 


A  WORLD  TRUST 

Boston,  Sept.  23.— A  dispatch  to  the  Transcript  from  Pittsburg 
says  that  two  Pittsburg  men,  President  James  A.  Chambers  and 
Vice-President  M.  K.  McMullin  of  the  American  Window  Glass 
Co.,  are  at  the  head  of  the  effort  to  form  a  world's  trust  in 
window  glass.  A  dispatch  from  Brussels  says  they  have  a  four 
months'  option  in  which  to  purchase  all  the  salable  glass  fac- 
tories in  Belgium.  When  Messrs.  Chambers  and  McMullin  went 
abroad,  it  was  with  a  view  to  making  an  agreement  to  curtail 
production  and  maintain  prices  at  a  profitable  point.  It  is  expected 
that  they  will  return  to  Belgium  in  December. 

The  negotiations  with  independents,  co-operatives  and  workers 
in  America  last  spring  were  notably  successful.  A  short  fire  has 
been  secured,  as  the  plants  will  not  resume  operations  till  No- 
vember 1.  All  surplus  stocks  can  be  absorbed,  and  prices  main- 
tained at  the  present  high  level.  Last  year  the  window-glass 
business  in  America  was  aided  by  the  Belgian  strike. 

I  take  the  above  from  the  Evening  Post.  It  is  always  a 
matter  of  wonderment  to  me  that  the  editor  of  that  staid  old 
paper  can  give  such  an  item  of  news  indicating  a  new  and 
remarkable  development  of  industry  and  then  not  give  even 
a  line  of  comment  in  his  editorial  column. 

However,  it  is  easy  enough  of  explanation.  He  has  noth- 
ing to  say.  The  Evening  Post  for  many  years  was  the  lead- 
ing exponent  of  the  laissez  faire  theory  of  political  economy, 
(jive  us  free  trade  and  an  honest  administration  and  the  so- 
cial problem  is  solved,  it  said.  When  the  trusts  first  appeared 
no  paper  was  louder  than  it  in  denunciation  of  what  it  called 
the  '^brigands  of  commerce."  Up  to  that  time  I  myself  had 
been  more  or  less  an  admirer  of  the  Post. '  I  still  persisted 
in  the  delusion  that  it  was  at  least  honest  in  its  wrong  the- 
ories. I  wrote  a  number  of  letters  to  it  in  1884-85  on  the 
subject  of  trusts  showing  the  injustice  of  blaming  the  cap- 
italists for  doing  what  the  inexorable  laws  of  trade  forced 
them  to  do. 

I  was  not  a  Socialist  then,  but  had  sense  enough  anyway 
to  see  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  trust  to  the  capitalist. 
The  Post  refused  to  publish  any  of  my  letters,  much  to  my 


A  World  Trust.  201 

astonishment,  as  I  had  thought  until  then  that  any  one 
writing  to  them  upon  such  an  important  subject  as  the  trust 
would  be  sure  of  publication. 

I  have  learned  more  about  the  art  of  modern  journalism 
since  then.  The  newspaper  of  to-day  never,  except  as  a 
matter  of  necessity,  tells  the  truth  unless  the  truth  happens 
to  correspond  with  what  it  thinks  its  readers  like.  At  that 
time  the  Post  thought  its  readers  wanted  the  trusts  de- 
nounced as  inexcusable  nuisances.  To  have  me  come  along 
and  offer  a  reasonable  excuse  for  their  formation  and  ex- 
istence made  it  out  silly  to  call  for  the  abolition  of  the  trust. 
As  it  could  not  answer  me,  it  took  the  shortest  way  out  of  the 
difficulty  by  suppressing  my  letters. 

I  am  the  only  editor  who  always  stands  by  and  publishes 
anybody's  letter  on  any  side  of  the  political  question. 

However,  I  must  withdraw  part  of  my  criticism  of  the  si- 
lence of  the  Post.  It  at  last  delivered  itself  a  week  after  the 
news  of  the  International  Glass  combination  and  after  I  had 
written  the  foregoing.    This  is  from  its  editorial  of  October  1: 

The  rapidity  with  which  the  Trust  question  has  been  coming 
to  the  front  in  Mexico  has  been  plain  from  the  progress  recently 
made  in  railway  consolidation  in  that  country  and  the  total 
reorganization  of  the  country's  industry  upon  the  basis  of  the 
"community-of-interests"  principle.  The  "small  producer"  is,  as 
usual,  putting  in  his  complaint,  and  his  request  for  relief.  Mine- 
owners  urge  that  the  American  Smelting  and  Refining  Company, 
which  has  absorbed  most  of  the  mines  and  nearly  all  of  the 
smelters  in  Mexico,  is  now  closing  some  of  the  best  mines  in 
the  Sierra  Mojada  region,  in  its  effort  to  control  the  output  and 
the  price  of  ores.  It  is  now  stated  that  President  Diaz  is  con- 
sidering the  advisability  of  putting  a  check  upon  the  growth  of 
trusts  by  officially  prohibiting  them.  President  Diaz  may  learn 
a  useful  lesson  from  the  experience  of  the  United  States  Congress, 
which  prohibited  Trusts  by  the  Sherman  Law  with  such  effect 
that  by  1900,  according  to  Senator  Hanna,  "there  was  not  a  Trust 
in  the  United  States."  As  it  appears  to  be  Americn  capitalists 
that  are  causing  trouble  in  Mexico,  it  may  be  that  the  Trusts 
have  been  driven  to  that  country  from  the  United  States.  It  will 
be  interesting  to  see  where  they  will  go  when  they  have  been 
driven  out  of  Mexico  by  President  Diaz. 

Further  dispatches  attest  the  progress  that  is  being  made  by 
American  capital  in  competition  with  foreign.  Recent  announce- 
ments have  given  good  ground  for  the  belief  that  Americans  may 
prove  dangerous,  not  merely  as  sellers  in  European  markets,  but 
also  as  competitive  producers  on  foreign  soil.    The  most  note- 


202  Wilshire   Editorials. 

worthy  development  of  the  sort  was  seen  in  the  recent  pur- 
chase of  the  English  firm  of  Ogden's,  Limited,  by  the  American 
Tobacco  Company — a  step  which  has  aroused  serious  appre- 
hension not  merely  among  English  tobacco  manufacturers, 
but  generally  throughout  the  whole  field  of  British  indus- 
try. Further  progress  in  the  direction  of  American  control 
of  foreign  industry  has  now  been  made  by  the  Glass  Trust's 
acquisition  of  the  Belgian  glass  factories  at  Charleroi.  While  the 
Trust  has  not  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  entire  ownership  of  the 
factories,  it  has  acquired  a  large,  if  not  controlling,  interest.  The 
Trust,  with  its  enlarged  scope,  will  now,  it  is  thought,  be  able  to 
govern  the  market  and  control  wages.  Taken  in  connection  with 
other  transfers  of  American  capital  to  foreign  fields  of  investment, 
these  two  encroachments  must  be  regarded  as  highly  significant. 
They  indicate  where  the  headship  of  industry  is  likely  to  be  found 
in  the  future.  They  will  be  a  source  of  disappointment  to  those 
who  have  laid  stress  on  the  difficulty  of  forming  international 
combinations  of  capital.  They  will,  however,  bring  new  problems 
to  the  attention  of  governments,  and  may  raise  the  practical 
question  whether  the  governments  themselves  are  stronger  than 
the  Trusts. 

The  Post  is  not  unamusing  when  it  wonders  where  the  dear 
little  trust  birds  will  roost  when  Hanna  shoos  them  out  of 
this  country  and  Diaz  shoos  them  from  Mexico. 

It  is  still  more  amusing,  although  quite  unconscious  of  it, 
however,  in  its  plaintive  query  whether  the  trusts  are  stronger 
than  the  governments  or  not.  The  trusts  some  day  may  shoo 
the  governments  away  and  roost  in  the  coop  themselves,  the 
Post  evidently  thinks. 

Let  me  tell  you,  Dear  Post,  that  the  trusts  moved  in  long 
ago  and  the  governments  are  simply  their  tenants  at  will. 

"  You  don't  believe  it?  Well,  you  did  not  believe  me  when  I 
predicted  ten  years  ago  that  American  capital  would  be  so 
superabundant  in  this  country  that  it  would  be  forced  to  in- 
vest in  Europe. 


Left  at  the  Evening  Post.  203 


LEFT  AT  THE  EVENING  POST 

With  a  suddenness  that  must  be  startling  to  those  who  note 
only  the  surface  of  events,  Socialism  has  become  a  factor  in  our 
moral,  political  and  industrial  life.  The  Socialist  vote  for  Presi- 
dent last  fall  attracted  a  good  deal  of  attention — more,  perhaps, 
than  in  itself  it  deserved — but  it  was  in  no  way  a  measure  of  the 
importance  of  the  Socialist  movement.  And  year  by  year,  as 
science  compels  consolidations  and  co-operations  on  a  scale  im- 
possible in  the  past,  the  collectivist  proposals  formulated  by  the 
German  Jew,  Karl  Marx,  out  of  the  theorizings  of  the  great 
French  economists  of  the  eighteenth  century,  are  bound  to  receive 
more  and  more  attention. 

Whatever  one  believes  about  it,  he  must  inform  himself.  For, 
while  Mark  Hanna's  prediction  that  Socialism  would  be  the  storm 
center  of  the  next  great  political  battle  in  this  country  seemed 
exaggerated  when  he  made  it  a  few  years  ago,  his  farsightedness 
is  already  vindicated.  To  fight  for  Socialism,  you  must  under- 
stand it;  to  fight  against  Socialism,  you  must  understand  it. 

When  I  read  the  above  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post,  I, 
naturally,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  Mr.  Lorimer,  the  ed- 
itor, meant  what  he  said.  I  thought  he  was  anxious  that  his 
readers  should  learn  what  Socialism  really  means. 

He  certainly  says  so  plainly  enough.  He  advises  them 
that,  whether  they  are  for  or  against  Socialism,  it  is  neces- 
sary they  should  be  properly  informed  about  it.  Mr.  Lor- 
imer  did  not  attempt  to  tell  them  what  it  is,  and  thereby  he 
rose  still  higher  in  my  estimation,  for  it  is  a  wise  man  who 
knows  what  he  doesn't  know. 

Eegarding  Mr.  Lorimer's  editorial  as  an  invitation  to 
spread  the  doctrine  of  Socialism  before  the  eyes  of  his  read- 
ers I  prepared  a  modest  little  advertisement  of  Wilshire's 
Magazine  for  the  Post,  and  requested  its  insertion  at  the 
usual  rates.    It  read  about  as  follows : 

SOCIALISM !    Head  it  up !    Ten  cents  for  a  whole  year. 
WILSHIRE'S  MAGAZINE,  New  York. 

To  my  surprise  the  advertisement  was  refused.  I  say  to 
my  surprise  because  the  same  advertisement  was  readily  taken 
by  other  magazines  such  as  The  Outlook,  The  Independent, 
Success,  Public  Opinion,  The  Literary  Digest,  etc. 


204  Wilshire    Editorials. 

I  inquired  for  the  reason  of  the  turndown,  offering  to 
change  the  wording,  but  the  Post  replied  that  they  "did  not 
like  the  theme/'  which  meant  there  was  no  loophole  for  Wil- 
shire to  enter. 

Of  course,  all  this  is  merely  a  surprising  exhibition  of  busi- 
ness stupidity  by  people  who  are,  usually,  considered  very 
up-to-date,  yet  who  are  so  out  of  touch  with  the  movement  of 
the  times  that  they  do  not  know  that  the  word  "Socialism"  is 
no  longer  a  bogy  to  scare  away  readers  and  advertisers. 

For  instance  items  like  this  taken  from  the  New  York 
Evening  Post  are  getting  too  common  for  us  Socialists  to 
quote : 

The  word  Socialism  pointed  at  any  scheme  ten  years  ago, 
would  knock  the  scheme  into  a  cocked  hat.  Now  the  word  So- 
cialism doesn't  scare  'em.  No  one  jumps  when  a  scheme  to  buy 
the  street  railways  of  Chicago  is  proposed  and  voted  on  and 
carried.  No  one  doubts  but  that  municipal  ownership  of  street 
railroads,  gas,  water,  lights  ard  power  will  be  as  prevalent  in 
America  twenty  years  from  now  as  any  political  custom. — 
Emporia  Gazette  (Rep.). 

The  Post  did  not  reject  the  advertisement  because  it  is  op- 
posed to  Socialism,  for  the  Post  is  not  opposed  to  anything 
that  does  not  affect  its  pocketbook.  It  simply  classes  the 
word,  or  theme  as  it  calls  it,  Socialism  as  it  would  class  Hyp- 
notism, or  Matrimony,  or  Astrology,  or  Clairvoyancy,  and 
other  such  words  which  are  used  in  connection  with  certain 
advertisements  which  the  publishing  world  dubs  as  "bad 
copy." 

By  this  is  meant  copy  that  tends  to  lower  the  tone  of  the 
publication,  and  causes  the  withdrawal  of  higher-class  adver- 
tisers, such  as  automobile  manufacturers,  etc. 

But  the  Post  is  learning  things,  for  I  have  in  hand  this 
moment  its  edition  of  May  13th.  Its  leading  editorial  is 
upon  the  Chicago  election,  and  it  is  significant  of  the  trend 
of  the  public  opinion  to  see  the  Post  speak  so  favorably  of 
"municipal  ownership."  The  cat  has  jumped  and  the  Post 
at  last  knows  which  way  to  run.  It  says :  "Voters  of  all  cities 
everywhere  are  all  in  sympathy  with  Chicago.  The  people 
must  reclaim  their  streets."  It  will  some  day  say  they  must 
reclaim  not  only  their  streets  but  all  their  wealth. 


Left  at  the  Evening  Post.  205 

It's  only  a  step  from  municipal  ownership  to  national 
ownership,  and  from  national  ownership  to  Socialism  is  only 
another  step. 

I  have  hopes  that  after  we  have  Socialism  the  Post  may  let 
me  use  the  word  Socialism  in  its  sacred  columns.  Who 
knows  ? 


206  WlLSHIEE    EDITOEIALS. 


THE  STRIKERS  AND  THE  MEAT  TRUST 

THE  strike  of  the  Meat  Trust  workers  and  the  conse- 
quential alarming  and  almost  prohibitive  rise  in  the 
price  of  meat  throughout  the  country  is  a  very  clear 
illustration  of  the  danger  into  which  the  trusts  are  dragging 
the  country.  When  a  few  men  can  prohibit  the  nation  from 
eating  meat,  and  a  few  others  can  prohibit  us  from  eating 
bread,  we  are  not  far  off  from  a  much  more  effective  despotism 
than  Nero  ever  conceived. 

That  the  workers  on  strike  have  a  most  just  cause  is  ad- 
mitted by  any  impartial  observer.  The  following,  by  Joseph 
Wanhope,  is  written  by  one  who  is  perfectly  familiar  with  the 
dreadful  conditions  of  the  trade  in  Chicago: 

It  is  a  strike  against  a  reduction  of  wages,  involving  a  cent 
per  hour,  but  so  narrow  is  the  margin  on  which  these  hunger- 
tortured  wretches  exist,  that  the  difference  of  a  cent  probably 
means  life  or  death  to  them.  At  any  rate,  it  was  the  last  straw. 
They  are  now  out,  and  the  contest  between  empty  stomachs  and 
the  capitalists'  dollar  is  on. 

Few  people  have  any  idea  of  the  indescribable  wretchedness 
in  which  these  Chicago  workers  live.  Right  under  the  walls  of 
the  district,  where  perhaps  more  food  is  stored  than  on  any  other 
spot  of  a  similar  size  on  earth,  the  children  of  the  unskilled 
workers  precariously  employed  in  the  monster  packing  houses, 
may  be  seen  standing  at  the  gates  begging  for  the  scraps  of  food 
that  might  be  left  in  the  dinner-pails  of  the  better-paid  working- 
men.  The  district  in  which  these  unfortunates  live  is  known  in 
Chicago  parlance  as  "back  of  the  dump,"  a  spot  several  acres  in 
extent  covered  with  the  reeking  garbage  of  the  great  city,  and 
mixing  its  fetid  odors  with  the  ever-present  stock-yard  stench. 
Unpaved  streets,  with  unfathomable  mud-holes,  dilapidated  and 
unsanitary  hovels,  cheap  saloons  and  gorgeous  churches,  most  of 
the  latter  subsidized  by  the  packers,  abound.  Politically,  the 
district  belongs  to  one  Carey,  a  saloon-keeping  alderman,  who  is 
hand  in  glove  with  the  packers,  the  clergy  and  the  thugs  of  the 
neighborhood,  and  whose  political  agents,  locally  known  as 
"Carey's  Indians,"  serve  to  keep  the  "boss"  in  power  as  agent 


Strikers  and  Meat  Trust.  207 

for  the  packers,  and  terrorize  any  intruders  who  would  poach  on 
his  political  domain. 

In  this  dreary  and  hideous  district,  the  light  of  Socialism  has 
never  yet  penetrated.  Years  of  work  and  effort  by  the  local 
comrades  have  failed  to  secure  a  foothold  there.  And  the  in- 
habitants of  this  region,  starved  in  body,  stunted  in  mind,  a 
combination  of  slavery,  brutality,  and  ignorance,  in  about  equal 
proportions,  have  at  last  rebelled,  and  are  now  ready  to  give 
what  battle  they  can  to  their  pious  exploiters. 

The  outcome  will  be  interesting,  though  there  is  little  doubt 
but  that  these  wretched  people  will  be  crushed  back  in  sullen 
despair  into  their  hideous  dens,  after  an  exhibition  of  "lawless- 
ness" that  will  afford  the  capitalists  all  the  excuse  they  need  for 
"taking  vigorous  measures  for  their  repression,"  and  for  the 
maintenance  of  "law  and  order." 

But  that  they  have  rebelled  at  all  is  a  hopeful  sign.  It  may 
give  the  Socialists  the  long-desired  opportunity  to  teach  the 
only  way  out  of  the  festering  mass  of  misery  and  want  that 
exists  under  the  shadow  of  a  mighty  food  reservoir,  of  which 
it  is  boasted  that  the  armies  of  Europe  must  first  make  applica- 
tion before  they  can  march,  and  which  sends  provisions  by  the 
millions  of  pounds  to  the  uttermost  ends  of  the  earth.  What- 
ever the  intellectual  capacity  of  these  suffering  people  may  be, 
there  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  Chicago  stock-yards  fur- 
nishes an  indictment  against  the  damnable  system  of  capitalism 
that  cannot  be  paralleled  elsewhere  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 

But  fundamentally,  the  question  of  whether  the  strikers 
are  right  or  wrong  is  of  minor  import  to  the  question  of 
whether  the  nation  as  a  whole  should  or  should  not  control 
the  supply  of  such  a  vital  necessity  as  beef. 

Under  private  ownership  the  assumption  is  that  the  pro- 
duction of  goods  is  of  interest  only  to  the  workers  engaged  in 
such  production,  and  of  their  employers. 

It  is  assumed  that  what  with  competition  between  the  work- 
ers for  work,  and  competition  between  the  employers  for  work- 
ers, that  things  will  automatically  adjust  themselves  to  the  end 
that  the  general  public  will  get  its  coal  and  beef  and  other 
things  it  may  want  and  will  buy.  But  when  we  have  com- 
petition eliminated  between  the  workers  by  a  Trade  Union, 
and  when  we  have  competition  eliminated  between  the  em- 
ployers by  a  Trust,  I  would  like  to  ask  where  does  the  dear 
public  get  off. 

The  evolution  of  our  industrial  system  necessitates  both 
Trusts  and  Trade  Unions,  but  does  the  reiteration  of  this 
theory  to  a  public  shivering  without  coal  and  hungry  with- 


208  Wilshire   Editorials. 

out  meat  reconcile  it  to  the  predicament  in  which  it  finds 
itself? 

There  is  but  one  sure  way  for  the  dear  public  to  warm  it- 
self and  feed  itself,  and  that  is  to  teach  itself  to  take  care  of 
itself.  Paddle  its  own  canoe,  so  to  speak.  Let  the  Public 
Own  the  Coal  Trust  and  the  Beef  Trust.  Let  the  Nation 
Own  All  the  Trusts. 


The  Ten  Hode  Decision.  209 


THE  TEN  HOUR  DECISION 

THE  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  by  a  vote  of 
5  to  4,  has  decided  that  the  New  York  State  law,  lim- 
iting the  work-day  to  ten  hours  for  bakers,  is  unconsti- 
tutional. The  general  ground  taken  by  the  majority  of  the 
court  is  that  such  a  law,  by  preventing  a  man  working  as  long 
as  he  chooses,  is  not  only  a  curtailment  of  his  liberty,  but  is 
an  infringement  upon  his  property  rights.  The  court  assumes 
that  a  man's  body  is  his  own  private  property,  to  do  with  it 
as  he  may  please,  and  that  any  denial  of  his  right  to  use  it  for 
over  ten  hours  a  day  is  virtually  an  infringement  upon  the 
divine  right  of  private  property. 

The  court  scouted  the  idea  that  the  bill  was  intended  to 
protect  either  the  health  of  the  bakers  or  of  the  bread-eating 
public. 

Justice  Harlan,  in  voicing  the  dissenting  minority,  pleaded 
that  the  bill  was  unquestionably  a  "health  bill,"  and  there- 
fore being  within  the  police  power  of  the  State,  the  federal 
government  had  not  the  right  to  intervene. 

It  may  here  be  stated  that  eight-hour  laws  in  Kansas  and 
Utah,  limiting  the  time  for  miners,  have  been  declared  by 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court  valid,  on  the  ground  that 
more  than  eight  hours'  work  underground  is  unhealthy,  and 
therefore  the  States  had  the  right  to  pass  such  laws. 

It  would  appear  then  that  any  law  limiting  the  workday 
must,  to  be  valid,  show  that  it  protects  the  health  of  the 
workers ;  the  leisure  or  pleasure  is  unimportant. 

This  is  a  pretty  fine  distinction.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that 
if  good  Justice  Peckham,  of  the  Honorable  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  should  be  compelled  to  make  his  living 
by  kneading  bread  in  the  ordinary  and  average  hot,  bad-smell- 
ing, underground,  dusty  bakery  in  New  York  City  he  would 
revise  his  opinion  about  ten  hours  of  such  work  not  being 


210  Wilshire   Editorials. 

too  long  for  one's  health,  and  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
ten  minutes  would  be  more  than  enough  for  his  health. 

However,  from  the  socialist  standpoint  the  view  taken  by 
the  majority  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  sound;  that  is,  it  is 
sound  constitutionally. 

Unquestionably,  the  makers  of  our  constitution  never 
thought  of  any  such  future  of  this  country,  as  is  seen  to-day, 
where  the  lack  of  ownership  of  property  would  make  the  mass 
of  the  people  dependent  upon  a  small  class  of  owners  of 
property. 

In  those  days  the  only  property  of  any  account  was  land, 
and  land  could  be  had  on  the  western  frontier  for  the  asking. 
If  a  man  did  not  like  the  wages  prescribed  by  his  employer,  he 
could  break  in  his  own  farm  on  the  public  domain  and  become 
his  own  boss. 

Under  such  conditions,  and  our  forefathers  thought  they 
would  be  permanent,  it  would  have  been  unquestionably  a 
very  direct  infringement  upon  a  man's  liberty  to  pass  a  law 
preventing  him  working  as  long  as  he  pleased. 

But  those  primitive  conditions  are  not  the  conditions  of 
to-day,  although  the  Supreme  Court  assumes  them  to  be,  and 
it  is  probably  bound  to  make  such  an  assumption. 

To-day  not  only  does  a  small  minority  own  all  the  land> 
but  it  owns  all  the  tools  necessary  to  work  the  land  and  bring 
the  product  to  market. 

Hence,  even  if  a  man  did  have  the  free  access  to  the  land, 
which  formerly  was  the  opportunity  of  all,  he  would  still  be 
in  economic  servitude  to  the  capitalists  who  own  the  necessary 
machinery  to  work  the  land. 

In  our  grandfathers'  days  the  "necessary  machinery"  meant 
an  axe,  a  hoe,  and  a  log-cabin,  all  of  which  were  easy  of  in- 
dividual production  and  ownership.  To-day  "necessary  ma- 
chinery" means  a  combined  reaper  and  harvester,  made  by  a 
one-hundred-million-dollar  trust,  a  one-hundred-million-dol- 
lar railway  to  haul  the  wheat  to  market,  a  million-dollar  ele- 
vator to  unload  it,  and  a  million-dollar  mill  to  grind  it  into 
flour,  and  finally  a  hundred-million-dollar  trust  to  bake  it 
into  biscuits  for  all  America. 

It  is  self-evident  that  there  are  not,  and  cannot  be,  enough 
million-dollar  "trusts"  to  allow  every  man  to  own  his  own 
"trust."     In  fact,  the  essential  idea  of  a  "trust"  is  not  so 


The  Ten  Hour  Decision.  211 

much  organization  of  property  as  it  is  orgainzation  of  men. 
It  is  as  absurd  to  think  of  every  man  owning  his  own  trust, 
no  matter  how  much  wealth  there  may  be,  as  it  is  to  think 
of  every  private  soldier  being  a  general  of  the  army. 

But  if  you  don't  own  your  own  trust,  you  must,  when  you 
wish  to  gain  your  living,  go  to  some  one  who  does  own  a  trust, 
and  beg  for  permission  to  use  it;  in  other  words,  you  must 
beg  him  for  a  job. 

It  may  be  that  you  will  approach  the  Biscuit  Trust.  It 
will  reply  and  say  that  all  its  employees  work  eleven  hours  a 
day,  and  that  it  can  only  give  you  work  on  condition  of  your 
working  the  regulation  number  of  hours. 

You  are  hungry,  and  no  other  trust  will  offer  anything 
better,  so  you  accept  the  conditions  and  work  the  eleven  hours 
per  day.  Perhaps,  after  you  have  worked  for  a  few  years 
eleven  hours  per  day,  you  and  your  fellow  bakers  organize 
and  send  up  a  delegation  to  the  State  capitol,  and  after  years 
of  work  they  persuade  the  legislature  to  pass  a  law  limiting 
the  workday  for  bakers  to  ten  hours  per  day. 

Suppose  after  your  great  legislative  victory  the  court  sets 
aside  your  law  because  it  infringes  upon  your  right  to  work 
for  eleven  hours  a  day? 

And  yet,  if  you  have  followed  up  all  the  foregoing,  you 
may  see  why  the  decision  of  the  court  is  strictly  "constitu- 
tional." Now,  what  are  you  going  to  do  about  it  ?  It's  stupid 
to  say  you  will  change  the  membership  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
The  judges  are  there  for  life,  and  few  die  and  none  resigns; 
and,  anyway,  they  have  only  said  that  black  is  black,  and  you 
should  not  demand  that  they  say  black  is  white,  merely  be- 
cause you  don't  want  to  work  eleven  hours  a  day. 

May  be  you  will  think  of  amending  the  constitution? 
After  you  look  into  the  matter  and  see  what  a  gigantic  task 
that  would  be,  I  think  you  will  give  up  the  idea.  It  would 
be  about  as  difficult  to  amend  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  a  ten-hour  bill  constitutional, 
as  it  would  be  for  Rockefeller  to  get  a  pass  into  heaven  from 
the  Reverend  Washington  Gladden. 

But  you  say  you  must  find  some  way  out.  Here  you  are  a 
citizen  of  the  richest  country  under  the  sun.  You  can  pro- 
duce more  wealth  in  a  minute  with  your  modern  machinery 
than  your  grandfather  could,  one  hundred  years  ago,  in  an 


212  Wilshire   Editorials. 

hour,  and  yet  your  Supreme  Court  says  no  matter  how  fast 
you  can  produce  with  your  labor-saving  inventions,  you  must 
work  eleven  hours  a  day  anyway. 

If  there  is  any  labor  to  be  saved,  it  is  evidently  not  to  be 
your  labor,  not  if  the  court  knows  itself.  One  hundred  years 
ago  your  grandfather  worked  eleven  hours  a  day;  to-day  you 
produce  sixty  times  as  much  and  you  must  also  work  eleven 
hours  a  day.  In  one  hundred  years  the  progress  of  invention 
may  quadruple  your  present  product,  but  you  must  still  buckle 
down  to  that  inexorable  eleven-hour  workday. 

May  be  in  another  hundred  years  your  grandson  will  pro- 
duce a  thousand  times  as  much  as  you  produce  to-day,  but 
nevertheless  his  nose,  too,  must  touch  the  grindstone  for 
eleven  hours  a  day,  and  Rockefeller's  grandson  will  be  worth 
ten  billion  dollars. 

Of  course,  you  know  that  the  increased  product  does  not 
mean  increased  pay  for  you.  You  are  paid  according  to  how 
cheap  the  trust  can  get  some  other  fellow  to  take  your  place. 
How  much  you  produce  has  nothing  to  do  with  your  pay. 

If  you  are  a  baker  and  an  automatic  kneading  machine  is 
installed,  increasing  the  product  ten  times,  allowing  the  trust 
to  discharge  nine  out  of  its  ten  bakers,  do  you  think  the  lucky 
tenth  man,  who  is  kept,  will  regard  it  as  an  opportune  time 
to  ask  for  more  pay  ?  Not  when  he  thinks  of  those  nine  men 
just  let  out,  every  one  of  whom  wants  to  get  back  at  any  wage 
that  will  feed  him. 

You  may  well  despair  if  you  look  upon  existing  conditions 
of  trust  ownership  as  permanent.  But  did  you  ever  think  of 
the  possibility  of  a  change  from  private  ownership  to  public 
ownership  ? 


Wall  Street  Journal  Turns  Moralist.         213 


WALL  STREET  JOURNAL  TURNS 
MORALIST 

1  BELIEVE  in  playing  a  game  fair  or  not  at  all.  If  you 
enter  into  a  contest,  certain  rules  of  play  have  been 
agreed  upon  beforehand,  and  you  find  yourself  getting 
beaten,  if  you  have  any  sand,  you  will  stick  by  your  agree- 
ment and  take  your  medicine.  You  must  either  do  that  or 
play  the  baby  act  and  ask  for  a  modification  of  the  rules  to  fit 
your  special  case. 

If  you  want  to  play,  stick  to  the  rules. 

If  you  do  not  want  to  play  then  say  so,  ask  for  a  new  deal 
and  a  new  set  of  rules. 

Now  we  Americans  a  long  time  ago  entered  upon  a  game 
of  competition  in  money-making.  We  fixed  upon  certain 
rules  at  the  beginning  of  the  game,  and  now  we  have  no  right 
to  whine  about  Rockefeller  and  Morgan  beating  us  at  our 
own  game  and  with  our  own  rules,  and  at  the  same  time  insist 
upon  going  on  with  the  game. 

The  general  rule  of  the  game  was  competition  to  a  finish; 
let  the  best  man  win;  the  fellow  who  could  quote  the  lowest 
price  should  have  the  market.  Let  bankruptcy  engulf  the 
high-price  man. 

I,  myself,  am  perfectly  consistent  in  my  attitude.  Let 
others  be  the  same. 

I  say  that  Rockefeller  and  Morgan  and  Gates  and  Hill  and 
that  gang,  with  their  immense  bank  accounts,  can  get  away 
with  the  rest  of  us  poor  small  fry  in  this  competitive  game, 
and  that  I  for  one  have  had  enough  of  it.  I  am  licked,  I 
confess  it;  and  I  have  sense  enough  to  throw  up  the  sponge. 

I  call  for  a  new  deal  and  new  rules. 

I  want  the  earth  made  subject  to  a  redivision  and  I  wish 
new  rules  made  that  will  forever  prevent  its  ownership  being 
again  alienated  from  the  common  ownership  of  the  people. 

I  say  that  when  the  government  owns  the  capital  of  this 
country  just  as  it  owns  our  national  parks  and  our  post  office, 
that  then  will  be  established  an  everlasting  equality  of  all 


214  Wilshire  Editorials. 

wealth;  and  never  until  this  is  done  will  men  be  content, 
for  before  that  time  justice  will  not  be  done. 

Now  if  we  should  try  and  think  up  some  one  person  who 
is  satisfied  with  the  existing  order  of  things  and  upon  whose 
lips  is  the  cry:  "Let  well  enough  alone,  Stand  pat,"  we 
would  most  likely  have  thought  that  we  should  find  him  in 
the  editor  of  the  Wall  Street  Journal. 

But  if  we  did,  then  we  have  another  thing  coming,  for 
this  is  the  cry-baby  talk  I  find  in  this  morning's  (Dec.  16) 
editorial: 

BUSINESS  AND  THE  LAW. 

We  observe  that  several  papers  which  have  reprinted  and 
commented  upon  the  little  anecdote  printed  in  this  column  some 
time  ago,  dealing  with  two  factories  and  the  method  by  which  a 
capitalist  proposed  to  acquire  the  prosperous  factory,  have  ap- 
parently misunderstood  the  general  drift  of  our  remarks  there- 
upon. We  printed  the  story  mainly  to  point  out  that  the  law 
permitted  the  doing  of  a  great  many  things  in  the  way  of  busi- 
ness, which  were,  in  a  moral  sense,  nothing  better  than  highway 
robbery.  We  did  not,  as  one  or  two  of  our  more  ingenuous,  if 
hasty,  commentators  assumed,  at  all  venture  to  justify  such  acts. 

To  speak  plainly,  we  see  no  essential  difference  between  the 
taking  of  a  competitor's  business  away  from  him  by  extreme 
competition,  that  is,  by  competition  not  warranted  on  any  other 
motive,  and  the  forcible  abstraction  of  portable  property  from 
one  man  by  another  man  stronger  than  himself.  We  do  not  regard 
it  as  morally  defensible,  for  example,  for  a  man  to  establish 
himself  alongside  someone  else  and  proceed  to  take  away  the 
business  of  that  someone  else,  using  for  that  purpose  the  brute 
force  of  money  spent  in  selling  at  a  loss,  any  more  than  we  should 
regard  it  as  morally  defensible  for  him  to  accomplish  the  same 
purpose  by  brute  force  of  arms.  The  purpo'se  is  immoral.  It 
involves  the  taking  away  of  that  which  belongs  to  someone  else 
by  other  than  fair  competition.  Of  course,  such  a  process  is  as 
common  as  can  be  in  the  business  world,  and  is  perfectly  legal. 
The  Standard  Oil  Company  was  charged  with  this  kind  of  thing 
at  practically  all  stages  of  its  existence.  Apparently  no  Standard 
Oil  representative  has  ever  felt  it  necessary  to  deny  the  charge. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the  conventions  of  the  business 
world,  expressed  in  the  law,  have  simply  replaced  the  exercise  of 
mere  brute  force,  leaving  the  article  of  the  decalogue  against 
stealing  expressed  only  so  far  as  the  stealing  is  accomplished  by 
actual  physical  force  or  by  absolute  fraud.  Beyond  this  the 
moral  law  finds  no  expression  in  the  law  of  business. 

Now,  I  have  often  read  such  tommy-rot  before,  but  usually 
in  such  periodicals  as  the  Christian  Herald  or  the  Salva- 


Wall  Street  Journal  Turns  Moralist.  215 

tion  Army  War  Cry.  To  find  it  in  the  Wall  Street  Journal 
is  too  funny  for  words. 

The  Journal  believes  in  competition  all  right,  as  long  as 
you  do  not  compete  in  order  to  take  away  the  other  fellows' 
business  by  selling  below  cost.  He  wants  a  fight,  but  insists 
on  no  broken  heads.  Pray,  what  right  has  the  Journal  to 
tell  me  how  I  am  to  spend  my  money  and  how  I  am  to  fix 
my  selling  price?  And  anyway  how  is  he  to  determine  what 
my  "cost"  price  is?  I  may  be  selling  at  a  price  which  renders 
me  a  profit,  but  which  would  mean  a  loss  to  my  competitor. 
I  may  have  a  superior  process,  I  may  own  the  sources  of  sup- 
ply, I  may  own  my  own  property  while  he  must  pay  rent,  I 
may  have  a  much  bigger  plant;  and  so  simply  because  I  have 
more  money  and  can  afford  to  sell  for  less,  my  selling  for 
less  of  necessity  captures  my  competitor's  business. 

Now,  why  do  I  have  a  bigger  capital?  Why,  in  fact,  do  I 
have  any  capital  at  all?  Do  I  own  capital  for  the  purpose  of 
fulfilling  the  moral  law? 

Not  at  all.  I  own  capital  to  make  money  with  and  for 
that  purpose  only. 

It  is  true  that  it  is  not  so  very  many  years  ago  when  men 
were  wont  to  think  of  the  moral  law  and  the  business  law 
as  much  the  same  thing.  It  is  a  comparatively  modern  view, 
this  of  the  Wall  Street  Journal's,  that  a  man  owning  the 
superior  capital  and  taking  away  another  man's  capital  is 
morally  in  the  same  class  as  a  highwayman,  but  financially 
eligible  to  be  a  member  of  young  Mr.  Rockefeller's  Bible 
class. 

If  we  are  to  have  private  capital  and  competition,  then  let 
us  have  it  and  play  the  game  according  to  rule.  Let  the  big 
man  devour  the  little  man;  he  has  a  right  to  his  prey.  It's 
too  late  altogether  for  the  Wall  Street  Journal,  speaking  for 
the  smaller  capitalists  who  are  being  driven  to  cover  by  the 
superior  capital  of  Rockefeller,  to  cry  "quarter."  There  is  no 
quarter.  It  is  war  to  the  knife  and  the  knife  to  the  hilt.  I 
cry  not  for  quarter.  There  can  be  no  quarter  under  capital- 
ism and  competition.  I  demand  justice,  and  justice  can  come 
only  with  Socialism- 


216  Wilshire   Editorials. 


THE  INEXORABLE  TRUST 

THE  EVENING  POST  of  New  York  is  one  of  the  jour- 
nals to  whom  a  considerable  number  of  people  look  for 
guidance  in  their  political  and  economic  creeds.  It 
sets  itself  up  as  an  oracle  upon  all  theories  of  political  econ- 
omy, and  especially  does  it  think  itself  "IT"  when  such  sub- 
jects as  the  tariff,  free  silver  and  trusts  are  concerned.  I  am 
bound  to  say  that  its  views  are  usually  stated  vigorously  and 
to  the  point,  and  that  it  is  not  always  wrong.  However,  upon 
the  real  vital  question  of  the  hour— the  trusts — it'  hides  itself 
in  a  cloud  of  words  so  that  no  man  can  tell  what  it  proposes 
as  a  remedy  other  than  it  thinks  the  disease  is  not  so  very  bad 
and  that  the  best  thing  is  to  forego  doctoring  and  let  it  wear 
itself  out.  Now,  this  is  not  a  bad  program,  provided  the 
patient  doesn't  die  before  the  disease  wears  out,  but  upon 
such  a  contingency  the  Post  utters  no  warning. 

As  to  the  Trust  wearing  itself  out  with  old  age  I  would 
like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Post  to  the  following  item 
taken  from  its  columns  of  a  recent  issue: 

The  "irrepressible  conflict,"  as  one  dealer  termed  it,  which  is 
taking  place  between  the  International  Salt  Company  and  the 
independent  producers,  has  resulted  not  only  in  forcing  the  price 
far  below  the  cost  of  production,  with  a  consequent  overproduc- 
tion of  about  100  per  cent.,  but  in  convincing  the  independents 
that  they  cannot  engage  in  a  campaign  of  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  unless  they  organize  themselves.  There  is  just  now  a 
great  deal  of  talk  among  them  of  conferring  with  the  Interna- 
tional Company  for  the  purpose  of  making  some  sort  of  deal 
as  to  prices.  But,  as  it  was  pointed  out  by  a  leading  manufacturer 
in  this  city,  there  is  little  hope  of  success  even  after  a  so-called 
organization  of  independents.  When  he  was  asked  why,  he 
replied: 

"For  the  very  simple  reason  that  some  one  in  the  organization 
is  always  ready  to  cut  the  price  to  get  more  than  his  share  of 
the  tonnage.  That  is  history.  It  is  a  fact  that  there  have  been 
times  when,  at  meetings  of  salt  men  to  decide  upon  prices,  some 
have  not  even  waited  for  the  meeting  to  close  before  going  out 
to  telegraph  their  houses  to  cut  the  prices  just  agreed  upon. 

"The  International  Company  is  the  aggressor  in  the  campaign, 
and  there  is  little  doubt  in  my  mind  that  it  is  at  the  bottom 
of  this  week's  reduction  of  price,  salt  having  declined  to  $1.50 


The  Inexorable  Trust.  217 

per  ton  at  the  works,  a  drop  of  about  30  cents.  One  advantage 
the  International  has  over  the  independents  is  that  it  supplies 
certain  trades  with  mined  salt,  as  well  as  producing  evaporated 
salt,  and  it  controls  all  the  mines  in  operation  in  New  York  State. 
Also,  it  has  large  interests  in  the  salt  regions  of  Michigan,  Kan- 
sas, and  Texas,  where  the  independents  do  not  enter. 

"The  Michigan  salt,  however,  is  of  inferior  grade,  and  while 
it  may  be  unloaded  upon  the  East  in  such  a  way  as  to  demoralize 
prices,  it  can  do  so  only  for  a  brief  time,  owing  to  its  quality, 
or  lack  of  it.  The  Michigan,  Kansas  and  Texas  stations  can 
supply  the  Central  West,  and  the  International  establishments 
at  Watkins  Glen,  Ithaca  and  Warsaw,  New  York,  are  sufficiently 
great  to  supply  the  Eastern  seaboard  and  the  Middle  States.  As 
for  the  independents,  their  large  evaporating  plants  at  Akron, 
Wadsworth  and  Cleveland,  Ohio,  and  Watkins,  Leroy  and  Perry, 
New  York,  place  them  in  a  position  to  supply  the  entire  Eastern 
trade  and  that  of  the  Middle  States. 

"So  the  situation  is  this:  There  are  two  factors  capable  of 
supplying  the  trade  east  of  the  Mississippi,  and  each  is  doing 
what  it  can  to  supply  it.  The  consequence  is  an  overproduction 
of  about  100  per  cent,  and  a  very  natural  drop  in  the  price.  What 
remains  to  be  seen  now  is  how  long  the  independents  can  stand 
the  pace.  With  its  profits  on  mined  salt  the  International  can 
probably  pay  the  interest  on  its  bonds,  and  it  would  seem,  there- 
fore, that  this  company  is  in  a  position  to  fight  the  fight  on 
these  lines  if  it  takes  all  winter.  The  independents  cannot  hope 
to  accomplish  anything  unless  they  get  together  and  that  very 
close  and  very  earnestly. 

The  International  Salt  Company,  which  has  offices  at  No.  170 
Broadway,  is  incorporated  under  New  Jersey  laws  with  a  capital 
stock  of  $30,000,000.  It  has  acquired  the  securities  of  the  Nation- 
al Salt  Company  and  its  constituent  concerns,  and  of  the  Retsof 
Mining  Company,  miners  of  rock  salt.  It  also  controls  the  Inter- 
national Salt  Company  of  Illinois. 

Without  dwelling  upon  the  ridiculous  logic  of  the  Post, 
which  has  it  that  the  low  price  of  salt  has  resulted  in  a  con- 
sequent over-production  instead  of  the  very  reverse  being 
true,  I  would  like  the  Post  to  point  out  how  it  is  possible 
for  there  not  to  be  finally  born  a  Salt  Trust  which  will  put 
an  end  to  what  it  calls  the  "irrepressible  conflict." 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  capitalists  engaged  in  the 
salt  business  are  engaged  therein,  not  for  the  purpose  of  giv- 
ing the  dear  public  salt,  as  our  political  economists  would 
have  us  believe,  but  for  the  purpose  of  making  money.  If  it 
happens  that  they  can  make  more  money  by  not  making  salt 
than  they  can  by  the  making  of  it,  then  it  won't  take  them 
long  to  shut  down  their  salt  mines, 


218  Wilshire   Editorials. 

There  is  more  salt  being  produced  than  the  public  can  buy, 
even  when  the  salt  is  sold  at  less  than  cost. 

Some  people  would  have  us  believe  that  there  is  never  an 
over-production  of  a  commodity  when  the  selling  price  is  not 
placed  too  much  above  cost.  They  seem  to  think  the  public 
buy  upon  the  plan  of  only  paying  a  fair  profit  and  that  when 
the  price  is  fixed  at  this  figure  the  public  will  buy  unlimited 
quantities,  in  fact  just  as  much  as  is  produced. 

Of  course  this  is  all  rubbish.  The  public  buy  as  little  as 
they  can  get  along  with.  I  want  just  so  much  salt  on  my 
potatoes,  and  if  salt  were  ten  cents  a  ton  I  would  not  use  a 
pinch  more  because  it  was  cheap. 

However,  there  is  a  capacity  in  our  salt  mines  to  give  us 
more  salt  in  a  week  than  we  can  use  in  a  week.  The  salt  was 
put  there  in  those  mines  to  last  man  on  this  earth  for  the 
next  million  years;  if  so  we  can  naturally  mine  more  of  it 
out  in  a  week  than  we  can  use  up  in  a  week. 

However,  the  salt  manufacturers  are  not  concerned  with 
the  next  million  years,  they  can  only  make  money  by  mining 
salt  right  now  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1905,  and  mine  salt 
they  intend  to  do  if  every  man  jack  of  them  goes  bankrupt, 
unless  they  can  come  to  an  agreement  which  will  result  in 
their  making  just  as  much  money  by  refraining  from  mining 
salt  as  they  could  if  they  mined  it.  The  Post  may  say,  "Very 
well,  let  the  Kilkenny  salt  cats  compete  themselves  to  death ; 
the  community  is  the  gainer,  and  the  sooner  such  fools  are 
off  the  earth  the  better."  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  it's 
only  the  little  salt  fools  that  are  competed  off  the  earth.  The 
big  International  Salt  Company,  which  is  the  aggressor  in 
the  struggle  now  going  on,  wishes  just  this  result.  When  the 
fight  is  over  it  will  be  the  sole  survivor,  and  salt  will  be  a 
commodity  the  mining  of  which  will  be  a  monopoly  resting 
entirely  in  its  hands. 

Is  not  this  an  absolutely  necessary  result  of  the  continuance 
of  the  existing  struggle,  I  would  ask  the  omniscient  Post  ? 

If  it  is  the  inevitable  finality,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Post 
what,  then,  is  its  solution  of  the  Trust  Problem?  Let  the 
Trust  wear  itself  out?  That  is  absurd,  for  the  Trust  is  the 
result  of  entirely  natural  conditions  and  no  more  can  wear 
itself  out  than  ice  can  melt  when  the  thermometer  remains 
below  zero. 


Good  Old  Kockefeller.  219 


GOOD  OLD  ROCKEFELLER 

ONE  of  the  most  fortunate  occurrences  that  could  hap- 
pen for  Socialism  is  that  the  man  who  has  most 
profited  by  the  existing  competitive  system  is  one 
who  so  strictly  conforms  to  the  conventional  ideas  of  religion 
and  morality.  If  Mr.  Kockefeller  were  noted  for  his  pro- 
fligacy or  his  violation  of  the  ordinary  business  rules  of  life 
we  might  be  able  to  blame  the  individual  rather  than  the 
system,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  even  the  most  searching  scru- 
tiny into  his  methods,  which  is  being  given  by  Miss  Tarbell 
in  McClure's  Magazine,  discloses  no  such  moral  or  legal  de- 
linquency of  which  so  many  other  of  our  great  capitalists 
are  guilty.  Miss  Tarbell's  story  of  Rockefeller  which  is  con- 
tinued in  last  month's  McClure's,  is  simply  a  long  recital  of 
the  attempt  of  the  various  refiners  and  producers  of  oil  to 
keep  up  an  independent  existence.  She  says  that  up  to  1887 
Mr.  Rockefeller  had  confined  his  attention  to  refining  of  oil 
and  had  not  gone  into  the  production  of  the  raw  material. 
In  that  year,  for  the  first  time,  he  was  compelled  to  purchase 
oil  bearing  lands,  inasmuch  as  the  oil  producers  were  form- 
ing a  monopoly  which  threatened  to  cut  him  off  from  his 
supply  of  crude  oil.  Oil  had  always  been  at  such  a  very  low 
price,  owing  to  overproduction,  there  was  no  reason  for 
Rockefeller  producing  himself.  There  were  complaints  as  to 
the  low  price  of  oil  and  Rockefeller  was  blamed  for  this 
condition.  He  replied  when  asked  by  an  investigating  com- 
mittee, "the  dear  people,  if  they  had  produced  less  oil  than 
they  require,  we  would  have  given  their  full  price;  no  com- 
bination in  the  world  could  have  prevented  that  if  they  had 
produced  less  oil  than  the  world  requires."  That  this  is  true 
can  be  seen  by  the  fact  that  the  yearly  production  of  crude 
oil  had  risen  from  five  and  a  half  million  barrels  to  thirty 
million  barrels  and  in  1883  thirty-five  million  barrels 
were  above  ground  in  stock.  Mr.  Rockefeller  could  not  be 
blamed  for  this  great  surplus  of  oil  being  produced,  inas- 
much as  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  production.     It  is  true 


220  Wilshire   Editorials. 

that  he  did  limit  the  distribution  to  a  certain  extent 
by  putting  up  the  price  of  his  refined  oil,  but  even  if 
he  had  sold  at  absolute  cost  there  would  have  been  over-pro- 
duction anyway.  The  lowering  of  the  price  a  few  cents  a  gal- 
lon would  have  undoubtedly  stimulated  somewhat  the  demand 
for  oil,  but  not  nearly  enough  to  have  absorbed  the  total  pro- 
duction. The  earth  has  in  its  oil  fields  a  great  deal  more 
oil  than  people  can  burn  up  this  year,  but  the  oil  producers 
do  not  seem  to  think  so.  It  is  absurd  to  think  that  all  you 
have  to  do  is  to  reduce  the  price  enough  to  use  up  at  once  the 
earth's  store  for  the  ages.  Not  only  can  the  earth  yield  a 
great  deal  more  than  the  people  can  possibly  burn,  but  our 
competitive  system  prevents  people  from  having  means 
enough  to  buy  what  they  want,  so  that  there  are  two  very 
good  reasons,  either  of  which  is  quite  sufiicient  to  account 
for  overproduction.  Mr.  Rockefeller  has  been  absolutely  re- 
lentless in  his  determination  to  prevent  and  exterminate  com- 
petition in  the  oil  business,  but  that  he  has  done  anything 
that  any  ordinary  business  man  would  not  do  to  beat  a  com- 
petitor in  a  similar  case  is  not  very  clear.  The  great  differ- 
ence between  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  most  men  is  that  he  has 
had  the  courage  and  ability  to  resort  to  such  measures.  It 
has  been  alleged  that  Mr.  Rockefeller  was  instrumental  in 
having  certain  opposing  refiners  in  Rochester  blown  up  in 
order  to  get  rid  of  them,  but  Miss  Tarbell  has  sifted  the 
evidence  pretty  closely  and  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  there 
is  no  ground  for  this  charge.  However,  it  is  admitted  that 
Wilshire's  Magazine  is  rather  a  prejudiced  witness  in  fa- 
vor of  Mr.  Rockefeller,  inasmuch  as  we  are  endeavoring  to 
show  that  the  fault  exists  not  in  the  individual  but  in  the 
system.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  day  is  not  so  very 
far  distant  when  McClure's  Magazine  will  also  come  to  the 
same  opinion.  Their  brilliant  contributor  Lincoln  Steffens 
does  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  the  source  of  corruption 
does  not  exist  in  the  innate  wickedness  of  man,  but  in  the 
innate  wickedness*  of  the  competitive  system  under  which 
man  labors. 


Wilshire's  Exile  to  End.  221 


WILSHIRE'S  EXILE  TO  END 

THIS  Magazine  is  printed  in  Canada  and  edited  in  New 
York.  This  anomaly,  however,  is  going  to  end,  as  we 
have  just  received  the  gracious  permission  of  His  Im- 
perial Highness,  President  Roosevelt,  conveyed  through  his 
Third  Assistant  Postmaster  General,  Mr.  Madden,  that  he 
has  decided,  in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness,  to  allow 
me  to  print  in  New  York.  It's  very  good  of  the  Strenuous 
One  to  allow  a  Socialist  devil  like  Wilshire  to  ink  his  edi- 
torial sheets  in  the  same  city  where  he  thinks  his  thinks. 
That  the  approaching  November  election  has  had  anything 
to  do  with  this  awakening  of  the  conscience  of  His  Strenu- 
osity  is,  of  course,  not  to  be  mentioned.  The  President  had 
"to  have  time  to  consider,  that's  all.  With  the  press  of  in- 
digent Republicans  seeking  the  job  of  caring  for  the  Post 
Office  of  Podunk,  how  could  he,  with  all  his  Strenuosity,  look 
into  a  matter  so  trifling  as  that  of  Suppression  of  the  Press, 
and  particularly  the  Socialist  Press? 

I  will  not  weary  the  air  with  telling  of  my  woes  at  length, 
but  some  of  our  readers  are  unfamiliar  with  the  tale.  Let 
the  others  be  patient  while  I  groan. 

In  December,  1900,  I  began  to  publish  this  magazine — ' 
or  rather  its  weekly  predecessor,  The  Challenge — in  Los  An- 
geles. Things  soon  began  to  boom,  and  I  decided  New  York 
was  a  better  field  from  which  to  enlighten  the  Dear  Pub- 
lic. I  moved  my  printing  office  from  Los  Angeles  and  issued 
my  first  number  in  New  York  in  September,  1901.  I  had 
secured  my  second  class  publishers'  rate  in  California,  and 
took  it  for  granted  that  I  would  have  no  trouble  in  getting 
a  transfer  from  the  Los  Angeles  Post  Office  to  the  New  York 
Post  Office.  I  think  this  would  have  happened,  but  unfor- 
tunately the  very  week  my  application  for  a  transfer  went  in 
the  assassination  of  President  McKinley  occurred.  This  may 
have  been  simply  a  coincidence,  but  if  so  it  was  a  very  re- 
markable one.  The  Post  Office  refused  me  a  transfer.  At  the 
time  there  was  a  hue  and  cry  all  over  the  nation  that  the 


222  Wilshire   Editorials. 

assassination  was  the  result  of  the  pernicious  teaching  of  the 
doctrines  of  Socialism,  and  Anarchism,  and  that  all  papers 
advocating  such  doctrines  should  be  suppressed.  At  that  time 
a  good  many  people  did  not  distinguish  between  Socialism 
and  Anarchism,  and  it  looked  to  me  as  if  the  Post  Office 
thought  it  would  be  a  good  opportunity  to  injure  the  cause  of 
Socialism  by  suppressing  this,  a  Socialist  magazine.  How- 
ever, they  have  always  denied  this.  They  claim  that  the 
paper  was  not  suppressed  on  account  of  its  socialistic  views, 
but  because  of  its  Wilshire  views.  Its  views  were  so  Wil- 
\J  shiresque  that  the  magazine  in  their  eyes  was  simply  an  ad- 
vertising circular  for  the  spread  of  Wilshire  ideas,  and  as 
such  had  no  right  to  newspaper  postal  rates  but  must  pay 
"advertising  circular"  rates.  When  I  say  "suppressed"  I 
wish  to  explain  the  word.  The  paper  was  not  suppressed, 
but  its  rate  of  postage  was  raised  from  one  cent  per  pound 
to  eight  cents  per  pound.  This  is  really  equivalent  to  sup- 
pression, inasmuch  as  the  postage  cost  at  the  8-cent  rate  was 
practically  prohibitory. 

I  tried  to  have  the  decision  reversed,  but  all  effort  was  un- 
availing. I  appealed  to  the  President.  He  refused  to  either 
see  me  or  take  up  my  case  in  any  manner.  My  letters  to 
him  complaining  of  Mr.  Madden's  act  were  turned  over  to 
Mr.  Madden  himself  to  answer.  This  was  probably  as  insult- 
ing a  way  of  denying  a  citizen  the  right  of  petition  as  even 
strenuosity  could  devise.  I  went  to  the  United  States  Courts, 
but  obtaining  justice  that  way  is  too  long-winded  a  pro- 
cedure for  a  monthly  magazine.  My  case  is  yet  pending,  hav- 
ing never  even  come  to  trial.  After  exhausting  every  device 
I  could  think  of,  I  finally  appealed  to  the  Post  Master  Gen- 
eral of  Canada.  I  asked  him  if  he  would  give  me  second 
class  entry  there.  He  promptly  decided  that  Wilshire's 
Magazine  was  eligible  to  entry,  even  after  I  carefully  ex- 
plained to  him  that  Mr.  Madden  had  decided  it  was  merely 
an  advertising  circular  to  advertise  Wilshire's  ideas.  How- 
ever, the  Canadian  law  requires  that  a  periodical  taking  ad- 
vantage of  second  class  entry  at  the  Canadian  Post  Office 
be  printed  in  Canada.  I  must  right  here  explain  that  the 
postal  reciprocity  treaty  between  Canada  and  the  United 
States  makes  each  country  the  judge  of  its  own  classifica- 
tions and  what  postage  shall  be  charged.    I  hied  myself  to 


Wilshire's  Exile  to  End.  223 

Canada  and  issued  my  first  number  there  in  January,  1902, 
and  have  been  printing  there  ever  since.  My  editorial  and 
publishing  offices  remain  in  New  York.  My  printing  and 
mailing  are  done  in  Toronto. 

I  might  mention  that  just  prior  to  my  going  to  Canada  a 
certain  Mr.  Harrison  J.  Barrett,  an  attorney  of  Baltimore — 
a  nephew  of  Judge  Tyner,  the  recently  deposed  Attorney 
General  of  the  Post  Office — offered  to  take  up  my  case  and 
obtain  me  my  entry  in  New  York  for  the  modest  fee  of 
$5,000.  Mr.  Barrett  has  since  been  disbarred  for  connec- 
tion with  the  Post  Office  frauds.  I  declined  to  be  bled. 
So  for  the  past  two  years  and  more  I  have  had  the  unique 
distinction  of  thinking  in  New  York  and  printing  my  thinks 
in  Canada. 

All  the  time  I  have  been  trying  to  get  back,  but  hitherto 
unavailingly.  But  at  last  I  found  the  right  path.  It  was 
a  happy  inspiration.  I  had  called  the  matter  to  the  attention 
of  all  the  Congressmen,  but  never  a  one  budged  to  help  me 
upon  the  general  grounds  of  freedom  of  the  press.  That  was 
simply  a  question  of  principle,  and  who  bothers  about  prin- 
ciples these  days?  Consequently  I  tried  business.  A  certain 
printer  in  New  York,  not  knowing  of  my  enforced  exile,  came 
to  me  and  solicited  the  job  of  printing  the  magazine.  I  said 
I  would  be  glad  to  consider  his  bid  if  he  could  arrange  that 
the  New  York  Post  Office  would  allow  me  second  class  entry. 
Mr.  Printer  writes  to  Senator  Tom  Piatt  of  New  York.  He 
complains  of  the  gross  injustice  done  to  the  printing  trade 
of  New  York  in  forcing  me  to  give  out  work  to  Canada  which 
should  be  kept  at  home.  Could  Senator  Piatt  not  rectify 
such  an  outrage? 

"Well,  I  guess  I  can,"  says  the  Senator.  "What  am  I  here 
for  except  to  look  after  my  constituents  and  see  that  they 
can  have  every  opportunity  to  make  a  living?" 

Well,  that's  all.  In  short  order  I  had  a  most  polite  letter 
from  Mr.  Madden  saying  that  anything  he  could  do  for  me  to 
help  me  get  back  in  New  York  would  be  done  instanter.  As 
a  preliminary  he  granted  me  the  right  of  "foreign  entry." 
This  means  he  has  decided  that  the  magazine  is  all  right  as 
now  printed  in  a  "foreign"  country — Canada — and  is  a  tacit 
admission  from  him  that  if  it  is  printed  in  New  York  that  I 
will  have  entry  there. 


224  Wilshire    Editorials. 

So  good-bye,  dear  Canada.  I  have  many  pleasant  recollec- 
tions of  you.  You  have  treated  me  much  better  than  my  own 
country  ever  did.  I  shall  never  forget  how  you  sheltered  me, 
a  poor  exile.  I  would  stay  with  you  longer,  but  it's  too  trou- 
blesome, this  sending  manuscript  to  and  fro  between  New 
York  and  Toronto.  I  may  have  to  print  my  next  number 
in  Toronto,  but  after  that  I  shall  remain  in  New  York  un- 
less Mr.  Madden  decides  that  I  have  again  become  too  Gay 
for  New  York,  and  then  I  may  come  back.  Leave  your 
latch-string  out,  Dear  Lady  of  the  Snows. 


Bbyan  Will  Discuss  Socialism.  225 


BRYAN  WILL  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM 

WHEN  we  say  that  Bryan  will  discuss  Socialism  we 
must  hasten  to  qualify,  and  add  without  delay  that 
there  is  a  saving  clause  to  this  announcement,  for 
the  discussion  is  to  be  in  "due  time."  He  probably  means 
that  he  will  discuss  Socialism  when  Socialism  is  due.  We 
gather  this  information  from  a  Sandusky,  Ohio,  paper. 
Thomas  H.  Cowens,  a  prominent  and  wealthy  Sandusky 
young  man  and  an  ardent  Socialist  who  takes  great  interest  in 
questions  of  the  day,  recently  wrote  to  Bryan,  asking  him 
whether  it  was  true  that  he  refused  to  debate  with  Gaylord 
Wilshire.    Bryan  replied: 

I  will  say  that  it  is  true  that  I  refused  to  debate  with  Mr. 
Wilshire,  as  I  have  refused  to  debate  with  a  great  many 
others. 

Answering  your  other  questions,  I  beg  to  say  that  the 
question  of  Socialism  will  be  discussed  in  due  time,  but  I  do 
not  accept  the  theory  that  the  trust  is  an  economic  evolution. 

Mr.  Bryan  enclosed  a  cartoon  from  his  paper,  the  Com- 
moner, which  he  says  is  an  illustration  of  the  "manner  in 
which  the  water  is  being  squeezed  out  of  the  trusts,"  and 
adds  that  "this  would  indicate  that  they  are  anything  but  nat- 
ural or  legitimate." 

In  the  above  Mr.  Bryan  at  last  admits  he  refused  to  debate 
with  Mr.  Wilshire.  This  is  the  first  time  we  ever  knew  he 
would  even  admit  having  received  the  challenge.  Yes,  we 
agree  it  is  wearisome  debating  with  every  obscure  crank  who 
comes  trotting  down  the  pike,  wishing  to  gain  notoriety  by 
a  debate  with  a  great  man.  We  heartily  sympathize  with  Mr. 
Bryan's  disinclination  to  accept  such  challenges.  But  Mr, 
Wilshire's  challenge  was  not  exactly  of  the  ordinary  variety, 
There  was  money  to  be  paid  to  Mr.  Bryan  for  wearying  him- 
self, if  talking  can  be  said  to  weary  W.  J.  Mr.  Wilshire 
offered  Mr.  Bryan  $10,000  for  a  short,  but  painful,  two  hours 
of  Mr.  Bryan's  time.  A  large  cash  deposit  was  put  up  with 
Mr.  Bryan's  friend,  Editor  W.  R.  Hearst,  as  a  guarantee  of 


226  Wilshire   Editorials. 

good  faith,  upon  Mr.  Wilshire's  part,  so  there  could  be  no 
doubt  that  the  money  would  be  forthcoming  if  Mr.  Bryan 
would  accept  the  challenge.  Mr.  Bryan  simply  paid  no  at- 
tention whatsoever  to  the  challenge  though  it  was  made  in 
such  a  way  that  he  could  accept  the  money  either  in  his 
capacity  as  a  speaker  or  as  a  lawyer. 

However,  when  it  appears  that  even  at  this  belated  hour 
Mr.  Bryan  does  not  yet  accept  the  theory  that  Trusts  are  a 
result  of  economic  evolution,  and  as  evidence  of  the  sound- 
ness of  his  views  we  see  that  he  refers  to  the  falling  value  of 
Trust  stocks  upon  the  stock  exchange  it  is  not  difficult  for 
us  to  determine  why  Mr.  Bryan  refuses  ten  thousand  dollars 
to  debate  the  Trust  Problem.  He  knows  nothing  about 
Trusts,  he  knows  nothing  about  "economic  evolution,"  and 
knowing  enough  to  know  that  he  doesn't  know,  he  is  wise 
enough  to  do  all  he  can  to  keep  the  public  dark  as  to  his 
ignorance.  It  is  worth  a  good  deal  more  than  ten  thousand 
dollars  to  Mr.  Bryan  to  prevent  the  world  knowing  how  much 
he  doesn't  know.  A  debate  would  lift  the  cover  off  his  brain 
and  let  us  see  what  a  yawning  vacuum  exists  there.  It's 
both  money  and  fame  to  him  to  prevent  a  call  that  will  show 
what  a  bluff  he  makes  in  pretending  he  has  gray  matter  to 
burn.  The  squeezing  of  water  out  of  Trust  stocks  means 
nothing  at  all.  When  the  Steel  Trust  or  the  Oil  Trust  or  the 
Sugar  Trust  disintegrates  and  resolves  itself  into  its  com- 
ponent parts,  and  these  parts  once  again  compete  with  each 
other,  then  will  we  admit  that  the  Trusts  are  not  the  result 
of  economic  evolution.  In  the  meanwhile  we  maintain  that 
the  Steel  Trust  is  just  as  much  a  monopoly  to-day,  with  its 
shares  selling  at  $10,  as  it  was  a  monopoly  last  summer,  when 
its  shares  sold  at  $40. 

It  is  the  dividends  that  determine  stock  values,  and  it  is  the 
centralization  of  industry  that  determines  monopoly. 


America  Suffocating  With  Wealth.  227 


AMERICA  SUFFOCATING  WITH  WEALTH 

THE  particular  mission  that  this  magazine  has  taken 
upon  itself  is  to  show  the  people  of  the  United  States 
that  their  capacity  to  produce  has  so  far  outrun  their 
capacity  to  consume  under  the  limitations  of  the  existing 
wage  system  that  there  is  necessarily  piling  up  a  huge  mass 
of  unconsumed  products  which  will  soon  cause  a  cry  of  "over- 
production." This  will  be  followed  by  a  tremendous  fall  in 
prices,  accompanied  by  a  terrible  unemployed  problem. 

"We  cannot  employ  men  to  make  unsalable  goods,"  will 
say  the  employers. 

We  present  all  the  facts  in  the  world  to  support  our  con- 
tention, but  the  most  ominous  fact  of  all  that  we  present  is 
the  blindness  of  the  American  Public  in  failing  to  see  the 
significance  of  these  facts.  And  when  we  say  the  American 
Public  we  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  we  include  every 
class,  and  those  of  every  belief,  economic  and  social  as  well 
as  religious. 

It  might  be  thought  by  some  that  inasmuch  as  we  are 
proposing  Socialism  as  the  remedy  for  this  impending  calam- 
ity, that  all  Socialists,  or  at  any  rate  a  great  part  of  them, 
share  with  us  our  belief  in  the  imminence  of  the  collapse  of 
our  existing  industrial  and  financial  structure. 

This  we  reluctantly  confess  is  not  the  case.  The  vast 
majority  of  the  Socialists,  as  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  no 
more  believe  in  the  imminence  of  any  unprecedented  in- 
dustrial crisis  than  do  the  general  public.  The  Socialist 
theory,  as  delineated  by  Marx,  it  is  true,  compels  them  to  a 
pious  belief  that  at  some  old  day  and  at  some  old  time  or 
other  we  will  necessarily  face  such  a  crisis  as  we  ourselves 
believe  is  right  here  now  and  impending.  That  it  is  really 
now  at  hand  there  are  few  Socialists  who  agree.  If  Gabriel 
should  blow  his  trumpet  to-day  most  men  would  say,  "Hear 
that  big  megaphone."  We  speak  of  this  merely  to  show  that 
a  belief  in  the  theory  of  Socialism  derived  from  the  study  of 
books  written  fifty  years  ago,  unless  fortified  by  reading  un- 


228  Wilshire   Editorials. 

derstandingly  the  facts  of  to-day,  is  of  little  value  to  a  man 
in  interpreting  current  economic  events  and  their  bearing 
upon  Socialism. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  seem  about  to  plunge 
into  the  greatest  crisis  known  in  the  history  of  man  with 
practically  no  warning,  not  even  from  the  very  one  whose 
object  in  life  should  be  to  give  the  warning. 

In  confirmation  we  give  a  short  resume  of  the  last  U.  S. 
census  report: 

The  population  in  1903  is  estimated  at  80,372,000,  against 
23,191,876  in  1850  and  5,308,483  in  1800.  The  wealth  of 
the  country  is  stated  at  $94,000,000,000  in  1900,  and  it  is 
declared  that  presumably  $100,000,000,000  would  not  be  an 
unreasonable  estimate  for  1903,  while  for  1850  the  wealth 
of  the  country  stood  at  $7,000,000,000.  The  per  capita  wealth 
is  set  down  at  $1,235  in  1900  and  $307  in  1850,  having  thus 
more  than  quadrupled.  The  interest-bearing  debt  in  1903 
is  $914,000,000  against  $1,724,000,000  in  1880  and  $2,046,- 
000,000  in  1870.  The  per  capita  indebtedness  of  the  country 
in  1903  is  $11.51,  against  $60.46  in  1870. 

Gold  and  gold  certificates  in  circulation  in  1903  for  the 
first  time  exceeded  $1,000,000,000,  or,  to  be  exact,  $1,031,- 
000,000,  against  $810,000,000  in  1900  and  $232,000,000  in 
1880.  The  total  money  in  circulation  in  1903  was  $2,367,- 
000,000,  against  $1,429,000,000  in  1890,  $973,000,000  in 
1880,  $675,000,000  in  1870,  and  $435,000,000  in  1860.  De- 
posits in  savings  banks  in  1903  were  $2,935,000,000,  against 
$1,524,000,000  in  1890,  $550,000,000  in  1870,  and  $149,- 
000,000  m  1860. 

The  value  of  manufactures  for  the  census  year  1900  is 
given  at  $13,000,000,000,  against  $5,333,000,000  in  1880,  and 
less  than  $2,000,000,000  in  1860.  Railways  in  operation  in 
1902  had  203,132  miles  of  track,  against  166,703  in  1890, 
93,262  miles  in  1880,  52,922  miles  in  1870,  30,626  miles  in 
1860,  and  9,021  in  1850. 

Coal  production  increased  in  nine  years  from  162,814,977 
tons  in  1893  to  269,081,049  in  1902.  Steel  shows  an  increase 
from  4,019,995  tons  in  1893  to  14,947,250  tons  in  1902.  In 
the  same  nine  years  exported  manufactures  increased  from 
$158,023,118  to  $407,526,159,  and  total  imports  from  $866,- 
400,922  to  $1,025,719,237. 


America  Suffocating  With  Wealth.  229 

The  excess  of  total  exports  over  total  imports  in  1903  was 
$394,422,442.  In  1893  the  imports  exceeded  the  exports  by 
$18,735,728. 

How  anyone,  after  reading  these  figures,  particularly  those 
comparing  1890  with  1900,  can  fail  to  see  the  overwhelming 
support  they  give  to  our  argument  we  cannot  understand. 

In  1893  we  were  in  the  dregs  of  despair  from  an  economic 
standpoint.  We  seemed  to  have  built  everything  that  was 
to  be  built  and  there  was  no  employment  for  either  labor  or 
capital.  The  figures  show  us  how  much  we  were  mistaken 
when  we  compare  1900  with  1890  and  notice  the  enormous 
amount  of  capital  that  has  found  its  way  into  almost  every 
conceivable  trade  channel  from  banking  to  railways. 

Some  might  say  that  if  it  is  admitted  that  in  1893  we 
were  mistaken  in  thinking  capital  could  not  be  consumed, 
then  may  we  not  be  equally  mistaken  in  1904? 

We  answer  that  the  conditions  are  different.  In  the  first 
place  the  tremendous  augmentation  of  our  capital  which  has 
occurred  in  the  last  ten  years  affords  a  great  bar  to  additional 
capital  being  similarly  consumed.  The  trusts  are  the  tangible 
evidence  of  this.  The  trust  is  the  sign  of  over-production. 
That  there  will  be  some  capital  used,  that  there  will  be  im- 
mense sums  used,  we  do  not  for  a  moment  deny,  but  that 
there  will  be  enough  capital  consumed  adequately  to  employ 
labor  we  absolutely  refuse  to  believe,  unless  a  great  European 
war  intervenes. 

Barring  a  great  war  nothing  can  keep  our  capitalist  system 
alive  for  another  ten  years. 

In  order  for  capitalism  to  live  men  must  die.  Men  have 
long  died  for  capitalism  in  the  fetid  sweat  shop,  in  the  deadly 
dust  of  the  cotton  mill,  and  the  poison  of  the  lead  factories. 
Men  have  long  died  of  starvation  from  unemployment,  but 
with  all  the  slaughter  of  the  past  it  is  nothing  to  what  will 
be  necessary  for  the  future  if  capitalism  is  to  have  a  longer 
lease  of  life,  and  even  with  all  the  slaughtering  we  shall  find 
the  task  in  vain,  for  Socialism  is  bound  to  come  in  any  event. 
Let  no  one  think  we  are  referring  to  any  slaughter  coming 
as  the  result  of  an  attempt  at  forcing  a  change  from  capitalism 
to  Socialism.  We  do  not  anticipate  anything  of  the  sort. 
It  will  be  unnecessary  and  impossible.  The  slaughtering  of 
men  on  our  railways  and  women  and  children  in  our  bake- 


230  Wilshire  Editorials. 

oven  Chicago  theatres,  let  alone  the  slaughter  of  war,  is  quite 
enough  without  any  more  slaughter  being  necessary. 

The  next  great  upward  move  of  humanity  must  not,  and 
shall  not,  be  begun  by  a  sacrifice  of  life.  If  anyone  wishes 
to  do  any  sacrificing,  let  him  begin  on  himself. 

But  why  talk  about  "sacrifice" — sacrifice  of  either  life  or 
happiness?  What  we  propose  is  just  the  opposite.  Here  is 
a  vast  nation — the  United  States — proven  by  every  form  of 
statistics  to  be  rich  beyond  measure  in  every  thing  that  makes 
for  health,  happiness  and  life. 

The  wealth  is  the  Nation's. 

We  are  the  Nation. 

Ergo:  Let  us  have  what  is  ours. 

Let  the  Nation  Own  the  Trusts,  then  "we"  will  own  the 
Trusts — then  "we"  will  be  happy  for  we  will  have  abolished 
the  great  cause  of  unhappiness,  "Poverty." 


A  Psychological  Problem.  231 


A  PSYCHOLOGICAL  PROBLEM 


T 


HE  claim  of  the  inevitability  of  Socialism  places  it  upon 
a  somewhat  different  plane  than  that  of  any  other  eco- 
nomic  doctrine.  No  protectionist  ever  claims  that  "pro- 
tection" is  the  result  of  industrial  evolution,  and  that  hence 
all  the  world  must  adopt  it.  No  "single-tax"  man  thinks  that 
his  plan  of  taxation  will  come  about  as  a  natural  process  of 
human  thought. 

This  insistence  of  the  inevitability  of  Socialism  by  So- 
cialists often  gives  rise  to  the  query,  which  is  seen  in  the  fol- 
lowing letter : — 

Boston,  Mass.,  Oct.  21,  1901. 
22  Worcester  Sq. 
H.  Gaylord  Wilshire,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir: — I  attended  the  lecture  given  by  you  last  evening 
(Oct.  20),  in  Paine  Memorial,  by  invitation  of  a  friend  of  mine. 
I  have  belonged  to  the  Democratic  party,  but  am  now  very  much 
interested  in  Socialism.  There  was  a  statement,  if  I  remember, 
made  by  you,  in  the  course  of  your  lecture,  that  Socialism  was 
inevitable — something  which  the  laws  of  nature  would  force 
to  come  to  pass.  Now,  if  you  really  think  so,  "why  not  let 
things  take  their  course?  The  ultimate  result  will  be  the  same?" 
By  way  of  explanation  I  will  say  that  I  don't  ask  you  this  ques- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  "sticking"  you,  as  the  small  boy  says, 
but  as  a  matter  of  information  for  myself  and  others  who  are 
interested  in  the  movement.  Hoping  you  will  oblige  by  answer- 
ing this  question,  I  am, 

Yours  sincerely, 

Thos.  J.  Smith. 

<<> 
This  is  at  base  a  problem  in  psychology.     If  you  wish  a 
man  to  perform  a  task  is  he  more  likely  to  do  it  if  you  tell 
him  beforehand  that  it  will  be  very  easy,  or  if  you  tell  him 
it  will  be  extremely  difficult,  perhaps  impossible? 

Of  course,  there  can  be  but  one  answer.  The  easier  a  de- 
sirable thing  is  to  acquire,  the  more  likely  is  the  man  to  at- 
tempt it. 

The  baby  wants  the  moon  and  reaches  for  it  until  he  grows 
old  enough  to  learn  he  cannot  get  it.  Then  he  tries  for  the 
earth,  and  finds  that  Morgan  has  been  there  first.    It  is,  of 


232  Wilshire    Editorials. 

course,  true  that  if  I  think  my  breakfast  is  going  to  fall  down 
from  heaven  whenever  I  wish  it,  and  exactly  in  the  form, 
place  and  time  that  I  wish  it,  then  it  might  appear  that  I 
will  not  be  likely  to  work  for  it.  However,  we  do  know  that 
as  a  matter  of  fact  the  rich  man  will  spend  long  hours  of  the 
most  arduous  labor  stalking  deer,  or  killing  salmon,  when  no 
motive  of  the  knowledge  that  he  will  go  hungry  unless  he  does 
such  work,  can  be  alleged.  He  simply  obeys  a  natural  and 
irresistible  instinct  to  work  for  his  living,  notwithstanding 
that  he  is  under  no  necessity  of  doing  so. 

Man's  pleasure  in  life  is  the  exercise  of  his  activities,  and 
inasmuch  as  the  problem  of  getting  food  has  for  so  many 
thousands  of  years  been  his  greatest  stimulus  to  activity  he 
cannot  resist  continuing  in  that  mode  of  action,  even  when 
the  immediate  stimulus  is  withdrawn.  He  acts  simply  from 
the  momentum  gained  through  his  forefathers.  The  very 
phrase,  "pleasures  of  the  chase"  shows  the  imperative  nature 
of  this  call  to  the  rich. 

It  is  evident  that  there  would  be  no  fun  hunting  deer  if 
you  knew  positively  that  there  were  no  deer  in  the  forest. 
So  with  Socialism.  The  reason  we  want  it  is  not  only  be- 
cause we  think  that  it  will  benefit  humanity,  but  also  because 
we  think  we  can  get  it.  Take  either  one  of  these  factors 
away  and  we  would  never  struggle  for  it.  The  nearer  at  hand 
it  is  the  more  we  will  struggle  for  it.  It  is  notorious  that 
those  men  who  have  the  clearest  conception  of  the  economic 
inevitability  of  Socialism  are  always  the  most  persistent 
workers  for  it. 

For  instance,  there  has  never  been  a  man  in  England  that 
has  devoted  so  much  of  his  life  to  Socialism  as  Hyndman, 
yet  he  himself  always  declares  that  it  is  his  knowledge  of  the 
inevitability  of  the  advent  of  Socialism  in  a  comparatively 
short  period  of  time  that  keeps  him  active  in  the  movement. 
I  myself  have  probably  always  been,  and  am  yet,  the  most 
optimistic  man  in  the  whole  Socialist  movement.  Since  the 
time  I  became  a  Socialist  I  have  never  placed  the  social  rev- 
olution away  over  five  years,  and  the  mere  fact  that  it  has 
never  come  off  according  to  my  predictions  has  never  daunted 
me.  I  am  still  a  "five  year  man,  with  a  possibility  of  three," 
and  I  will  never  be  anything  else.  If  I  had  to  be  in  "the 
hundred  year,  step  at  a  time,  take-what-you-can-get"  class, 


A  Psychological  Problem.  233 

you  would  find  me  automobiling  my  life  away  down  at  New- 1 
port  with  Reggie  Vanderbilt  instead  of  editing  this  maga-  \ 
zine.  There  is  nothing  of  the  Salvation  Army  stuff  about  [ 
me — preaching  to  save  a  man's  life  after  he  is  dead.  Nor  I 
is  there  anything  of  the  Seth  Low-Jerome  business  either — 
grubbing  away  trying  to  reform  the  Crokers,  Platts  and  Dev- 
erys.  That  sort  of  thing  may  amuse  Jacob  A.  Riis,  and  Carl 
Schurz,  and  President  Roosevelt,  but  it  has  no  attractions 
for  me.  As  said,  I  would  rather  chase  down  the  pike  on  my 
Red  Dragon  at  'steen  hundred  miles  an  hour,  terrifying  the 
farmers,  than  go  in  for  any  "reform  game."  Socialism  is 
the  only  game  that  amuses  me,  and  humanity  the  only  stake 
worth  my  while  wasting  my  time  playing  for.  Let  the 
Schwabs  go  in  for  Monte  Carlo  if  they  will.  They  are  fools 
to  be  ignorant  of  what  America  can  furnish  in  the  way  of 
sport  with  its  Maddens  and  Roosevelts.  I  will  take  my 
chances  on  a  man  working  for  Socialism  if  I  can  shove  the 
economics  into  him  far  enough,  while  I  won't  give  a  cent  for 
a  man  who  will  only  get  along  far  enough  to  admit  that  it  is 
a  "good  thing."  He  must  not  only  see  that  it  is  "good,"  but 
that  it  is  "coming."  Show  me  a  man  who  is  a  Marxian  in 
economics,  and  who  knows  the  extent  of  our  industrial  evolu- 
tion— who  understands  the  significance  of  the  trust,  and  I 
will  show  you  a  good  Socialist.  I  am  not  afraid  that  such  a 
man  will  not  work  for  the  cause  simply  because  he  thinks  it 
will  come  anyway. 

Socialism  will  not  come  without  our  working  for  it  any 
more  than  the  egg  would  be  hatched  unless  the  chick  worked 
itself  out  of  its  shell.  However,  the  chick,  we  know,  will 
work  itself  out  at  the  proper  time,  because  we  know  it  must 
obey  an  irresistible  instinct. 

The  same  with  humanity,  when  it  is  ready  to  be  hatched 
from  the  shell  of  capitalism  into  the  new  life  of  Socialism 
it  will  instinctively  work  its  own  salvation.  Humanity  will 
struggle  to  free  itself  from  the  shell,  simply  because  it  can- 
not help  obeying  the  irresistible  instinct  of  self-preservation, 
which  is  just  as  strong  a  social  instinct  as  it  is  an  individual 
instinct. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  particular  class  of  humanity  which 
will  bear  the  brunt  of  the  struggle  will  be  the  working-class, 
and  it  is  to  that  class  we  must  look  for  the  great  organiza- 


234  Wilshire   Editorials. 

tion  which  is  to  form  from  the  result  of  the  industrial  evolu- 
tion. Again  referring  back  to  the  chick  breaking  out  of  its 
shell,  we  may  think  the  bill  or  the  legs  have  more  to  do  with 
the  breaking  out  than  the  feathers  or  the  lungs,  but  we  know 
that  back  of  all  the  struggle  is  the  nervous  organization,  the 
brain,  which  must  first  be  formed  before  any  concerted  action 
can  take  place.  So  it  is  with  the  working  class.  They  must 
first  become  conscious  of  their  class.  They  must  become 
"class-conscious"  before  we  can  expect  intelligent  action 
from  them.  The  chick  will  have  motion  within  the  shell 
long  days  before  its  brain  is  formed — the  brain  comes  last 
in  development  in  all  life — but  this  motion  will  not  be  in- 
telligently directed  to  break  the  shell  until  the  brain  is  suffi- 
ciently developed  to  give  it  this  conscious  direction.  It  is 
the  same  way  with  the  labor  movement  of  to-day.  It  stag- 
gers blindly.  When  the  labor  giant  is  hurt  it  strikes  out 
blindly,  like  a  man  half  paralyzed,  as  liable  to  hurt  itself  as 
its  enemy.  Labor's  brain  is  as  yet  undeveloped.  It  has  now 
reached  the  "trade-union"  stage  of  development,  which  is  as 
far  from  maturity  as  is  the  brain  of  a  week-old  infant.  How- 
ever "trade-unionism"  is  a  necessary  stage  in  the  progress  of 
the  labor  brain,  and  it  is  as  foolish  to  think  that  this  step 
could  be  skipped  as  it  is  to  think  that  while  labor  has  this 
kind  of  a  brain  that  it  can  think  out  clearly  the  Socialist 
program. 

A  smart  child  will  learn  to  read  without  a  teacher,  but  he 
will  learn  more  rapidly  if  he  has  one.    Socialists  are  the  in- 
(    structors  of  ignorant  and  immature  humanity. 


New  Shoes  for  Old  Ballots.  235 


NEW  SHOES  FOR  OLD  BALLOTS 

DURING  the  decadence  of  the  Roman  empire  it  was  cus- 
tomary to  suppress  the  clamor  of  the  proletariat  by 
giving  them  free  bread  and  free  circuses — partem  et 
circenses. 

Practically  the  same  thing  now  goes  on  in  New  York  City 
to-day.  There  are  a  few  dozen  men  in  New  York  City, 
mostly  Tammany  "leaders,"  each  of  whom  has  a  following 
of  from  a  few  hundred  to  several  thousand,  whom  they  en- 
tertain during  the  summer  months  by  taking  them  up  the 
Hudson  river  for  excursions,  giving  them  free  lunch  and  free 
beer.     During  the  winter  free  clothing  is  distributed. 

In  return  for  this  these  thousands  of  men  deliver  up  their 
votes  to  the  givers  of  the  excursions  and  food.  Then  the 
"leader"  sells  the  votes  to  Belmont  &  Co.  for  so  much  hard 
cash.  For  instance,  the  following  is  taken  from  the  New 
York  Sun,  February  7,  1906 : 

When  Congressman  Big  Tim  Sullivan  gave  a  Christmas  din- 
ner the  5,000  participants  received  each  a  ticket  calling  for  a 
pair  of  shoes.    At  the  dinner  Big  Tim  said  to  his  constituents: 

"Boys,  I  think  we're  going  to  have  another  long  stretch  of 
mild  weather,  and  you  won't  need  the  shoes  as  much  now  as 
when  it  gets  good  and  cold  in  February." 

He  announced  that  the  shoes  would  be  given  out  on  February 
6.  That  Tim  is  a  good  weather  prophet  was  the  unanimous  opin- 
ion of  the  Bowery  yesterday  afternoon  when  4,800  men,  each  sup- 
plied with  one  of  his  cards,  showed  up  at  the  club  house  at  207 
Bowery.  Each  man  except  two  one-legged  men,  who  took  one 
each,  got  a  good  pair  of  shoes  in  which  there  was  a  pair  of 
woolen  socks.  As  they  left  the  club  house  the  men  were  passed 
through  the  assembly  room  on  the  second  floor,  where  hot  coffee 
and  sandwiches  awaited  them.  Big  Tim  was  present  with  all  the 
other  Sullivans. 

It  is  not  for  Wilshire's  to  find  fault  with  these  poor  men 
who  get  something  returnable  for  their  votes  in  the  way  of 
something  so  very  tangible  as  a  pair  of  shoes,  when  the  rest  of 
the  world  does  not  find  fault  with  the  other  hundreds  of 


236  Wilshire   Editorials. 

thousands  of  our  fellow  citizens  who  give  away  their  vote 
without  getting  anything  at  all  for  it.  Dry  Shoes  and  Free 
Sandwiches  beat  nothing. 

We  Americans  could  just  as  well  have  the  ownership  of 
our  own  country  and  a  guarantee  of  at  least  $10,000  apiece 
for  everyone  of  us  per  year  income,  instead  of  a  chance  at  a 
sandwich,  if  enough  of  us  would  only  mark  our  ballots  right, 
if  the  majority  of  us  voted  for  the  Socialist  party.  We 
would  then  have  Socialism,  and  poverty  would  be  abolished. 
Meanwhile  we  'don't  do  it,  and  the  great  part  of  us  throw 
away  our  ballot  without  even  getting  the  pair  of  shoes  which 
big  Tim  Sullivan  gives  his  constituents. 


Disadvantage  of  not  Being  A  Princess.         237 


DISADVANTAGE  OF  NOT  BEING  A 
PRINCESS 

DEMOCRACY  has  its  disadvantages  without  mistake. 
Here  has  been  poor  little  Miss  Alice  Roosevelt  de- 
lighting her  heart  with  the  promise  of  being  the  dis- 
tinguished guest  at  the  coronation,  when  suddenly  her  dream 
is  cut  short,  and  she  is  told  she  can't  go,  forsooth,  be- 
cause her  going  might  cause  her  pa  to  lose  the  Irish  vote. 
Now,  if  she  were  a  real  princess  instead  of  only  a  four-year- 
term  one,  like  her  pa  is  a  king,  they  could  both  snap  their 
fingers  at  votes  of  all  kinds  and  she  could  go  to  all  the  cor- 
onations she  had  a  mind  to. 

Why  should  not  the  American  people  have  their  own  home- 
made Princess  Alices  and  Heir-Apparent  Teds  just  as  well 
as  the  effete  monarchies  of  Europe?  We  have  demonstrated 
that  we  can  beat  the  world  in  the  making  of  anything  we 
turn  our  hands  to,  and  why  should  we  quail  at  making  a 
princess?  Why?  We  have  been  long  enough  complaining 
of  the  great  drain  upon  the  country  from  the  export  of  gold 
sent  to  Europe  to  support  the  daughters  of  our  millionaires 
who  have  not  only  been  forced  to  go  abroad  for  husbands 
possessing  the  necessary  rank  to  comport  with  a  millionaire 
wife,  but  have  also  actually  been  compelled  to  remain  and 
live  abroad  in  order  to  procure  a  fitting  environing  society 
to  properly  set  off  their  exalted  position  in  life.  Why  should 
we  send  William  Waldorf  Astor  an  exile  to  England,  with 
his  hundred  million  dollars  of  American  money,  to  buy  a 
title  when  we  can  supply  the  demand  at  home?  It  is  true 
that  there  is  some  sort  or  other  of  an  antiquated  clause  in  our 
constitution  that  prevents  any  titles  being  granted  by  the 
government,  but  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  the  U.  S.  Supreme 
Court  could  find  a  way  round  a  little  obstacle  like  that  easily 
enough.  Let  the  administration  drop  a  hint  as  to  what  its 
wishes  are  and  the  thing  is  done. 

One  good  argument  against  the  present  system  of  our  de- 
pendence upon  Europe  for  our  titles  of  nobility  is  that  our 


238  Wilshire   Editorials. 

men  are  at  such  a  disadvantage  compared  with  our  women. 
An  American  girl  can  make  herself  a  duchess  any  time  she 
will  put  up  the  price  sufficiently  high  to  induce  a  duke  to 
marry  her,  but  the  American  man  has  no  such  matrimonial 
highway  open  to  his  dukedom.  He  must  in  the  first  place 
take  another  man's  wife  to  get  a  woman  with  the  title  of 
duchess,  and  when  he  gets  her  he  don't  get  the  title.  This 
is  not  right. 

The  American  man  has  a  natural  right  to  be  a  duke,  just 
as  much  as  the  American  girl  has  to  be  a  duchess,  and  this 
country  should  open  the  way  to  him.  We  ought  to  start 
right  in  upon  this  proposition  of  manufacturing  an  Amer- 
ican nobility  before  any  more  of  our  money  goes  to  Europe. 
Inasmuch  as  the  idea  of  instituting  this  order  of  American 
nobility  is  simply  to  keep  our  millionaires'  money  at  home, 
it  would  manifestly  be  absurd  to  grant  a  title  to  a  person 
who  has  not  enough  money  to  buy  one  abroad  in  case  one 
could  not  be  obtained  at  home.  I  would  not  have  the  titles 
sold.  Let  them  come  as  a  matter  of  right,  simply  from  the 
possession  of  so  much  money.  To  begin  with,  anyone  who 
could  prove  a  million  would  be  a  baronet.  Then  we  could 
have  larger  amounts  for  marquises  and  earls  and  such  like, 
winding  up  with,  say,  a  requirement  of  fifty  million  dollars 
for  the  dukes.  I  think  one  hundred  million  would  be  about 
right  to  make  a  man  a  prince.  A  thousand  million  would, 
of  course,  make  a  fellow  anything  he  cared  to  pick,  Sultan, 
Tsar,  King  or  Emperor. 

I  do  not  suggest  that  the  holding  of  a  title  should  confer 
any  peculiar  political  powers  on  the  holder.  I  would  not  in- 
stitute any  new  House  of  Lords.  It  would  be  a  useless  addi- 
tion. The  rich  already  are  members  ex-officio  of  a  third 
house  which  is  easily  more  powerful  than  all  the  other 
branches  of  our  government.  This  house  has  no  duties  or 
responsibilities;  it  has  nothing  but  rights  and  powers.  It 
is  a  much  more  attractive  legislative  house  to  the  rich  than 
any  new  one  that  could  possibly  be  devised. 

No,  I  would  make  the  ownership  of  a  title  convey  no  rights 
not  already  enjoyed.  In  point  of  fact  the  political  power 
of  those  who  would  fall  into  the  titles  could  not  well  be  in- 
creased anyway.  I  would  not  even  make  it  compulsory  upon 
anyone  to  refer  to  the  holders  by  their  new  titles.    I  am  too 


Disadvantage  of  not  Being  A  Princess.         239 

much  a  believer  in  American  freedom  to  suggest  such  a  thing 
as  that.  Of  course  if  anyone  should  fail  to  call  a  duke  "duke" 
he  would  naturally  be  apt  to  lose  his  job,  but  that  would 
mean  nothing  much  unless  he  failed  to  get  another  one,  and 
even  then  it  would  only  mean  starvation.  No,  I  would  not 
force  anyone  to  notice  the  new  titles  who  did  not  wish  to  do  so. 
It  should  be  provided  that  the  loss  of  money  that  entitled 
the  holder  to  a  certain  title  should  carry  with  it  the  loss  of  the 
title.  There  is  no  sense  in  having  a  title  unless  you  have 
the  money  necessary  to  live  up  to  it.  Our  American  no- 
bility must  never  become  shabby.  To  be  shoddy  is  quite  a 
bad  enough  handicap. 


240  Wilshiee   Editorials. 


WHEN  MEN  LOVE  NATURE 

ONE  of  the  delights  of  walking  in  Central  Park,  New 
York,  is  the  confident  tameness  of  the  squirrels.  The 
pretty  little  creatures,  so  wild  in  the  woods  that  only 
glimpses  can  be  seen  of  them,  are  here  as  familiar  with  you  as 
so  many  kittens.  They  have  learned  that  man  is  not  neces- 
sarily an  enemy,  a  squirrel-killing  monster  to  be  avoided  with 
the  greatest  care.  On  the  contrary,  he  is  regarded  as  their 
special  friend  and  provider.  Every  man  that  approaches  the 
squirrel  is  regarded  as  a  possible  dispenser  of  delightful  pea- 
nuts, and  treated  with  becoming  politeness  and  courtesy.  It's 
a  small  thing  apparently — this  friendship  of  the  park  squir- 
rels— but  it  makes  us  understand  how  much  pleasure  man 
loses  by  not  being  on  like  good  terms  with  all  the  harmless 
wild  animals. 

Mr.  Harold  J.  Bolce  has  a  most  interesting  account  in  the 
Scientific  American  of  naturalists  commissioned  by  the 
United  Sates  government  on  the  distant  island  of  Laysan,  in 
the  Pacific,  where  they  have  discovered  some  new  birds,  and 
many  novel  facts  in  regard  to  known  species.  The  visiting 
scientists  were  perhaps  the  first  human  beings  whom  the 
myriads  of  birds  that  crowd  this  tiny  speck  of  land  had  ever 
seen.  In  consequence,  the  visitors  enjoyed  an  experience  un- 
usual in  modern  adventures.  Birds  representing  species 
which  in  other  lands  wing  hurriedly  away  at  the  sight  of 
man,  came  up  to  the  naturalists,  looked  curiously  into  their 
faces,  perched  on  their  writing  tables,  wonderingly  inspected 
the  tripod  and  other  accessories  of  the  cameras,  and  permitted 
themselves  to  be  stroked. 

The  fact  that  these  birds  are  ordinarily  regarded  as  the  wildest 
kind  of  species  made  a  profound  impression  on  the  visiting 
scientists.  "Wherever  we  went,"  said  Walter  K.  Fisher,  who 
under  Dr.  Charles  H.  Gilbert  directed  the  Laysan  expedition,  "we 
were  free  to  watch  and  learn,  and  were  trusted  by  the  birds.  It 
was  a  most  touching  and  unique  experience,  and  one  which 
demonstrates  all  too  forcibly  the  attitude  of  wild  creatures  which 
have  not  yet  learned  that  man  is  usually  an  enemy. 


When  Men  Love  Nature.  241 

Whenever  a  nest  of  white  tern  was  approached,  the  birds  would 
come  and  hover  in  front  of  the  explorers.  They  would  peer  in- 
tently into  the  faces  of  the  naturalists,  as  if  attempting  to  dis- 
cover the  purpose  of  the  unusual  intrusion.  Among  the  odd 
instances  of  lack  of  fear  on  the  part  of  these  birds  of  Laysan, 
was  the  action  of  an  albatross  which  came  up  and  peeped  into 
Mr.  Fisher's  face,  and  finding  that  he  was  disposed  to  be  friendly 
began  to  make  a  critical  examination  of  his  camera.  Many  of  the 
young  birds  of  this  species  on  the  island  permitted  themselves 
to  be  stroked  and  soon  acted  as  if  they  had  been  reared  as  pets. 

Some  day  when  man  ceases  to  murder  his  fellow  man  for 
money  and  to  shoot  the  wild  birds  for  sport,  the  earth  may 
become  all  like  Laysan. 

It  sounds  Utopian  to  think  of  a  future  when  men  will  be 
friendly  with  each  other,  and  it  sounds  still  more  Utopian 
to  predict  that  man  and  birds  and  animals  will  be  friendly; 
but  it  is  not  a  Utopian  prediction.  Nothing  is  really  more 
scientific,  for  it  is  subject  to  proof. 


242  Wilshire  Editorials. 


THE  DEATH  OF  THE  DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY 

IF  ever  the  Socialist  philosophy  was  justified  by  election 
result  it  was  by  that  of  November  8,  1904.  Political 
parties  are  merely  the  organs  of  different  groups  of  men 
who  are  more  or  less  conscious  of  what  they  want,  and  have 
organized  a  party  to  attain  these  wants  by  political  action. 
However,  just  as  organs  in  the  human  body  will  persist  for 
a  while  after  their  reason  for  existence  has  departed,  so  will 
political  organs  or  parties  persist  for  a  while  when  the  reason 
for  their  existence  has  departed. 

We  have  muscles  to  move  our  ears,  yet  we  have  no  reason 
for  such  muscles,  as  we  never  have  use  for  them.  But  there 
was  a  day  when  our  remote  ancestors  could  and  did  prick 
their  ears  as  well  as  any  horse,  and  in  those  days  ear  muscles 
were  manifestly  a  necessity.  Finally  when  we  ceased  to  prick 
our  ears  our  ear  muscles  gradually  lost  their  power  of  contrac- 
tion, but  they  are  still  with  us,  although  probably  diminishing 
in  size  from  century  to  century,  and  some  day  they  will  no 
doubt  completely  disappear  from  the  human  anatomy  in  the 
process  of  evolution. 

The  Democratic  Party  has  been  swept  off  the  political 
board.  It  is  true  that  it  remains  in  the  Solid  South,  yet  it 
simply  lives  there  as  a  makeshift  barrier  against  negro  dom- 
ination and  as  a  convenient  crowbar  for  certain  politicians 
to  break  into  fat  political  jobs.  Neither  in  the  North  nor  the 
South  does  it  justify  its  further  existence,  for  it  has  ceased 
to  be  the  representative  of  the  ideas  of  any  particular  eco- 
nomic class,  and  nothing  else  can  justify  life  in  a  political 
party. 

When  the  Democratic  Party  was  the  representative  of  the 
slave  power  and  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  South  as 
opposed  to  the  manufacturing  interests  of  the  North,  it  had 
a  right  to  live. 

When  the  slave  power  died,  the  Democratic  Party  still  jus- 
tified its  right  to  live  by  continuing  to  represent  the  economic 


Death  of  the  Democratic  Party.  243 

class  in  this  country  that  found  its  interest  in  a  low  tariff  as 
opposed  to  the  high  tariff  demanded  by  the  manufacturers 
through  the  Kepublican  Party.  But  finally,  with  the  prac- 
tical acceptance  of  all  classes  in  this  country  of  the  permanent 
economic  value  under  our  present  competitive  system  of  a 
high  tariff,  the  reason  for  the  existence  of  the  Democratic 
Party  was  once  more  in  question,  and  had  it  not  gained  a  new 
lease  of  life  by  taking  up  Free  Silver  and  suddenly  posing  as 
the  representative  of  our  rapidly  decaying  class  of  small 
capitalists,  it  would  have  died  a  natural  death  in  1896.  A 
rare  stroke  of  pure  luck  saved  it  from  death.  The  magical 
oratory  of  Bryan  and  the  silver  craze  artificially  galvanized 
it  into  the  appearance  of  life.  Many  thought  it  meant  the 
rejuvenation  of  the  old  and  dying  party. 

However,  after  two  tries  at  the  Presidency  under  the  semi- 
radical  banner  of  Bryan,  it  was  seen  that  a  silver  brick  would 
never  win  the  Presidential  game,  and  the  Democratic  leaders 
decided  that  the  party  must  make  a  new  move.  The  Hearst 
wing  said  forward,  the  Hill-Belmont-Cleveland  wing  said 
backward,  and  Hill  won,  nominated  Parker  on  the  "sane  and 
safe"  platform,  sent  out  a  gold  brick  telegram,  and  backward 
the  Democratic  Party  went,  so  far  backward,  indeed,  that  it 
has  gone  out  of  sight. 

But  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  if  the  Hearst  "forward 
policy"  had  been  adopted,  the  result  would  have  been  mate- 
rially different.  The  Democratic  defeat  would  have  been  as 
great  if  not  greater,  but  there  would  have  been  a  somewhat 
different  lot  of  political  corpses  on  the  battle-field,  that's  all. 
Parker  sought  to  revive  the  old-time  Democratic  party,  not 
understanding  that  the  reason  for  its  life  had  departed, 
and  therefore  that  it  could  not  possibly  be  resuscitated.  The 
reason  Parker  got  any  votes  at  all  in  the  North  was  simply  a 
case  of  persistence  of  an  organ  after  its  function  had  been 
lost,  like  the  aforementioned  human  ear  muscles  that  remain 
without  reason.  The  Democratic  Party  is  like  the  turtle  that 
would  walk  about  after  having  lost  its  head,  dead  but  doesn't 
know  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  Hearst  with  his  programme  of  public 
ownership  and  of  denunciation  of  private  wealth  could  not 
have  attracted  a  much  larger  vote  because  he  presents  no 
tangible  relief  to  any  particular  class. 


244  Wilshire   Editorials. 

It  is  true  that  the  people  as  a  whole  are  probably  tepidly 
in  favor  of  public  ownership,  and  most  of  ns  will  say  that 
it's  a  scandal  that  Kockefeller  has  so  much  money,  but  we 
are  not  sufficiently  exercised  over  the  matter  to  organize  into 
a  political  party  and  express  such  views  at  the  polls. 

Why? 

Simply  because  the  Hearst  programme  cannot  be  shown 
to  lead  anywhere.  We  have  poverty  amongst  us;  we  see  our 
country  given  over  hand  and  body  to  the  rich;  but  seeing  all 
this  does  not  make  us  to  see  that  denunciation  of  the  rich  or 
even  the  public  ownership  of  trusts  and  railways  will  help 
matters  much. 

Public  ownership  of  a  part  of  the  machinery  of  production 
simply  means  that  the  owners  of  the  part  remaining  in  private 
hands  will  reap  the  share  of  profits  that  formerly  went  to 
the  owners  of  the  property  taken  over  by  the  government. 

The  people  generally  who  are  not  owners  of  property  of  any 
kind  will  get  absolutely  no  benefit  from  the  Hearst  pro- 
gramme of  public  ownership. 

What  is  needed  is  the  abolition  of  the  competitive  wage 
system.  Socialists  demand  public  ownership  merely  as  a 
necessary  basis  for  the  substitution  of  the  co-operative  sys- 
tem in  place  of  the  competitive  system. 

We  demand  this  change  in  the  name  of  the  propertyless 
class,  the  proletariat,  and  have  organized  the  Socialist  Party 
as  the  organ  to  effect  it  politically. 

We  see  that  no  help  can  come  to  us  as  a  class  nor  to  the 
people  as  a  nation  for  our  economic  ills,  but  by  the  complete 
abolition  of  the  competitive  system,  together  with  the  private 
ownership  of  property  upon  which  it  is  based,  and  the  substi- 
tution of  the  co-operative  system  based  upon  the  public  own- 
ership of  property. 

The  Socialist  Party  has  a  sound  and  logical  reason  for  its 
existence. 

We  have  a  distinct  class  to  represent,  and  we  know  what 
will  benefit  that  class,  namely,  Socialism.  The  immense  vote 
for  the  Socialist  Party  shows  that  the  people  have  at  last 
begun  to  recognize  our  contention. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Democratic  Party  represents  neither 
a  part  of  the  people  as  a  class  nor  the  whole  of  the  people  as 
a  nation.     It  represents  nothing  and  therefore  it  logically 


Death  of  the  Democratic  Party.  245 

should  receive  no  support,  and  the  results  of  the  election 
show  that  it  will  no  longer  receive  any  support. 

The  Republican  Party  represents  the  people  who  wish  the 
present  capitalist  system  to  continue  and  to  work  along  as 
smoothly  as  possible.  Its  supporters  are  capitalists  who  look 
no  further  ahead  than  profits,  and  wage  earners  whose  ideal 
is  a  full  dinner  pail. 

It  has  had  its  great  victory  because  the  mass  of  the  people 
have  no  idea  of  the  possibility  of  changing  from  the  present 
competitive  system  to  a  better  system,  and  who  understand 
that  if  the  present  system  is  to  continue  then  there  is  no  better 
organ  for  the  capitalists  to  make  the  wheels  run  smooth  than 
that  furnished  by  the  Republican  Party. 

If  we  want  things  as  they  are,  then  we  should  all  be  Re- 
publicans. 

If  we  want  things  as  they  cannot  be  and  should  not  be  any- 
way, then  let  us  cling  to  the  corpse  of  the  Democratic  Party. 

If  we  want  things  as  they  must  be  and  should  be,  then  we 
must  all  become  Socialists. 

This  election  really  for  the  first  time  gave  the  world  a  good 
view  of  the  new  Socialist  Party.  It  was  the  first  Presidential 
election  in  which  a  ballot  was  cast  for  candidates  nominated 
by  a  party  of  that  name. 

It  is  significant  that  what  is  practically  the  birthday  of 
the  Socialist  Party  should  be  practically  the  death-night  of 
the  Democratic  Party. 


246  WlLSHIEE   Editoeials. 


THE  "RIGHT  TO  WORK" 

ON"  no  subject  has  there  been  delivered  quite  so  much 
flap-doodle  as  on  the  so-called  "right-to-work."  The 
last  deliverance  on  the  subject  to  which  any  one  paid 
attention,  was  that  of  Jas.  M.  Beck,  ex-Assistant  Attorney- 
General  of  the  United  States,  at  the  annual  dinner  of  the  Hol- 
land Society  in  New  York.  Mr.  Beck  in  the  course  of  his 
speech  got  rid  of  this  burden  on  his  mind : 

If  I  do  not  misread  history,  the  prosperity  of  the  Dutch  people 
was  founded  upon  a  principle  which  is  vitally  essential  to  the 
progress  and  happiness  of  any  people,  and  that  is  the  inalienable 
right  of  every  man  to  work  for  whom  he  pleases  and  at  what 
wage  he  pleases,  and  to  enjoy  freely  the  fruit  of  his  toil.  This 
principle  is  in  some  need  of  vindication  in  this  country  and  at 
this  hour.  Man  was  brought  into  the  world  to  work.  It  is  not 
only  his  burden,  it  is  his  right,  and  any  form  of  social  tyranny 
which  contravenes  this  right  is  infinitely  mischievous.  In  vain 
are  written  constitutions,  with  their  paper  guarantee  of  life,  lib- 
erty, and  pursuit  of  happiness,  if  the  right  of  the  humblest  citi- 
zen to  earn  his  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his  brow  is  thus  denied. 

In  the  above  Mr.  Beck  reveals  the  same  queer  mental  twist 
that  characterizes  all  of  those  speakers,  who,  like  himself,  are 
trust  attorneys,  or  in  some  other  way  are  moved  to  "bend 
the  pregnant  hinges  of  the  knee,  that  thrift  may  follow  fawn- 
ing." There  is  no  record  that  any  of  these  twisted  reasoners 
have  answered  the  question  that  why,  if  it  is  "the  inalienable 
right  of  every  man  to  work  for  whom  he  pleases  and  at  what 
wage  he  pleases,"  that  the  constantly  increasing  army  of  un- 
employed is  forced  to  go  hungry  for  the  lack  of  opportunity 
to  exercise  this  "inalienable  right."  As  Mr.  Beck,  and  those 
like  him,  interpret  the  doctrine  of  the  "inalienable  right  to 
work,"  the  theory  is  sheer  nonsense  and  is  simply  a  perver- 
sion of  the  theoretically  admitted  right  of  every  man  to  life, 
which,  of  course,  he  cannot  enjoy  without  work.  Mr.  Beck, 
and  those  of  his  kind,  seem  to  be  very  indignant  when  they 
talk  about  somebody  being  denied  the  right  to  work,  but  of 


The  Eight  to  Work.  247 

course  all  their  clamor  is  simply  due  to  the  fact  that  they  want 
unrestricted  competition  in  the  labor  market.  They  don't 
want  any  labor  organization  trying  to  control  the  labor  mar- 
ket because  that  means  Mr.  Beck  or  his  employers  will  have 
to  pay  higher  wages,  whereas  if  the  power  of  the  labor  unions 
is  crushed,  the  capitalists  can  get  labor  on  their  own  terms 
and  conditions.    That  is  the  whole  milk  in  the  cocoanut. 


248  Wllshibe   Editorials. 


THE  "MERGER"  DECISION 

THE  decision  of  the  United  States  Court  against  the  va- 
lidity of  the  Northern  Securities  Company  is,  as  has 
been  well  said,  a  most  revolutionary  departure  in  legal 
matters,  in  fact  it  is  so  very  revolutionary  that  it  is  palpably 
unconstitutional,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  Supreme  Court, 
upon  appeal,  will  so  declare  it  to  be.  The  very  essence  of  the 
right  of  private  property  is  the  right  of  disposal,  and  if  a 
law  preventing  disposal  of  property  is  declared  unconstitu- 
tional, then  the  constitution  must  part  with  its  time-honored 
label  of  "protector  of  private  property."  The  decision  is  in 
effect  that  certain  private  persons,  to  wit,  Mr.  Hill,  Mr.  Mor- 
gan and  others  have  not  the  right  to  dispose  of  their  stock  in 
the  Great  Northern  Railway,  the  Burlington  Railway  and 
the  Northern  Pacific  Railway  to  the  Northern  Securities  Co., 
because  that  company,  by  holding  the  stocks  in  those  various 
competitive  roads,  effects  a  combination  of  competitive  rail- 
ways and  hence  deprives  the  public  of  the  currently  supposed 
benefits  of  competition  in  railway  rates.  It  seems  to  me  that 
there  could  hardly  be  conceived  a  more  absurd  law  than  one 
which  says  to  a  man,  "You  must  not  sell  your  horse  to  a  man 
who  already  owns  a  horse,  for  if  you  do  we  will  make  that  man 
hunt  you  up  and  return  you  your  horse  and  take  your  money 
back.  If  you  happened  to  have  spent  the  money  meanwhile 
he  must  keep  the  horse  until  you  got  some  more  money."  By 
substituting  horse  for  railway,  the  old  for  the  modern  method 
of  transportation,  we  have  the  command  that  the  Circuit 
Court  has  issued  to  railway  owners.  Of  course  the  decision 
will  embarrass  Mr.  Morgan  until  he  gets  a  reversal  from  the 
Supreme  Court,  but  to  think  that  it  will  have  any  effect  to 
permanently  prevent  "mergers"  is  purely  childish.  For  the 
time  being  Mr.  Morgan  may  be  held  up  in  his  great  work  of 
unifying  and  systematizing  the  railway  systems  on  this  con- 
tinent, but  to  think  a  process  in  the  natural  development  of 
industry  can  be  permanently  prevented  is  manifestly  an  ab- 
surdity. Even  in  the  unexpected  event  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  affirming  the  decision  of  the  Circuit  Court 


The  Merger  Decision.  249 

the  general  result  must  finally  be  exactly  the  same,  viz.,  the 
process  of  concentration  and  consolidation  will  proceed,  al- 
though with  a  possible  halt  until  Mr.  Morgan  can  find  a  way 
around  the  obstacle.  When  a  huge  boulder  rolls  down  the 
mountain  side  into  the  stream  it  may  block  the  downward 
course  of  the  water  until  a  new  channel  is  cut  out.  The 
"merger"  decision  may  in  the  same  way  delay  Mr.  Morgan 
until  he  can  cut  out  a  new  channel  for  the  rising  flood  of 
combination.  To  think  that  a  new  channel  will  not  be  found 
by  the  water  blocked  by  the  boulder  is  no  more  silly  than  to 
think  that  a  new  channel  will  not  be  found  by  Mr.  Morgan. 
Necessity  makes  new  laws. 

The  president  of  the  Seaboard  Air  Line,  one  of  the  south- 
ern railways  that  Mr.  Morgan  is  preparing  to  merge  in  his 
Southern  Securities  Co.,  as  soon  as  he  sees  the  legal  coast 
clear,  has  expressed  great  satisfaction  at  the  "merger"  deci- 
sion. Quite  naturally,  he  is  one  of  the  useless  presidents  that 
Mr.  Morgan  will  eliminate  when  he  effects  his  Southern  com- 
bination. He  is  not  the  only  railway  president  of  the  smaller 
roads  that  would  like  to  stop  the  Morgan's  onward  march  of 
combination.  No  doubt  the  little  retail  dry  goods  merchants 
who  are  being  displaced  by  the  big  department  stores  would 
like  a  "merger"  decision  that  would  guarantee  them  their  po- 
sitions. However,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  Seaboard  Presi- 
dent, a  Southern  Colonel,  sah,  would  be  deadly  insulted  if 
he  knew  I  classed  him,  a  railway  president,  with  a  miserable 
little  dry  goods  merchant.  I  also  have  no  doubt  that  a  few 
years  ago  he  would  not  have  thought  it  possible  that  he,  a 
great  capitalist,  would  have  been  using  such  revolutionary 
language  as  the  following  which  the  press  ascribes  to  him : 

"It  is  idle  to  talk  of  a  political  republic  with  a  financial  ty- 
ranny; there  is  no  more  safety  in  having  commerce  at  the  mercy 
of  an  absolute  ruler  than  there  would  be  in  having  our  govern- 
ment controlled  by  a  czar  which  might  be  a  benevolent  or  cruel 
one,  according  to  his  whim  or  ability,  or  to  the  circumstances." 

It's  amusing  that  he  seems  to  think  that  the  United  States 
is  not  already  under  an  industrial  tyranny  simply  because 
he  happens  to  belong  to  the  tyrants  himself.  Let  Mr.  Mor- 
gan absorb  the  Seaboard  Air  Line  and  throw  him  out  and 
then  the  shoe  is  on  the  other  foot  and  the  Colonel  roars 
"TYRANNY !" 


250  Wilshire  Editorials. 


WILSHIRE'S  AND  THE  CRISIS 

WILSHIRE'S  MAGAZINE  is  not  dwelling  upon  the 
coming  unemployed  problem  because  it  thinks  that 
nothing  but  the  appearance  of  that  event  will  bring 
on  Socialism,  but  because  it  thinks  that  this  coming  unem- 
ployed problem  is  absolutely  inevitable. 

We  do  not  look  for  such  people  as  ordinarily  compose  the 
unemployed  army  which  is  always  with  us  to  be  revolution- 
ists. We  know  the  ones  who  have  made  a  failure  of  life  un- 
der our  present  competitive  system  are  not  likely  to  be  the 
ones  who  are  to  carry  on  most  of  the  work  of  Socialism.  But 
we  do  say  that  when  the  economic  crisis  does  come  and  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  men  will  be  hungry  for  the  first  time, 
men  who  have  heretofore  considered  themselves  successes  in 
life — that  then  such  men  as  these  will  be  the  very  finest  re- 
cruits possible  for  our  Socialist  army  of  the  future. 

Wilshire's  does  not  look  to  misery  and  poverty  progress- 
ively increasing  and  so  finally  forcing  the  nation  to  revolt. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  might  even  be  willing  to  admit  with- 
out prejudice  the  claim  made  by  some  that  labor  is  possi- 
bly better  off  to-day  than  it  was  formerly,  and  that  it  may  be 
getting  better  off  from  year  to  year.  It  is  not  progressive 
misery  that  we  look  forward  to  for  the  stimulating  of  men 
to  see  the  necessity  of  Socialism,  but  it  is  the  sudden  transi- 
tion from  prosperity  to  hard  times  which  we  think  will  do 
the  work. 

In  the  meanwhile,  in  order  that  the  work  may  be  done  prop- 
erly when  the  crisis  comes,  we  Socialists  are  educating  the 
working  class  so  that  they  may  realize  how  to  act.  We  don't 
think  the  mass  of  men  will  act  unless  there  is  a  strong  im- 
pulse for  them  to  move.  On  the  other  hand,  we  don't  think 
that  they  will  then  move  in  the  right  direction  unless  they 
have  been  instructed.  The  mission  of  the  Socialists  is  to  show 
the  workingman  how  the  competitive  system  robs  him  and 
how  he  can  liberate  himself  by  being  the  owner  of  machinery 
of  production  himself.     The  workingman  is  to-day  being 


Wilshire's  and  the  Crisis.  251 

slowly  taught,  but  no  one  can  question  that  it  will  be  much 
easier  to  teach  him  in  times  of  an  economic  crisis. 

We  are  ready  to  admit  that  Socialism  can  come  without  a 
crisis,  but  we  declare  it  will  take  a  much  longer  period  to  get 
the  working  class  to  listen  to  the  Socialist  speaker  without  a 
crisis  than  with  one. 

In  the  meanwhile,  we  Socialists  should  act  as  if  a  crisis  will 
never  come.    Keep  on  plugging  along  and  never  stop. 


252  Wilshire   Editorials. 


VOTE  FOR  DEBS 

ONCE  again  the  people  of  this  Republic  are  to  go  to 
the  polling  booths  in  order  to  declare  their  wishes 
as  to  how  our  affairs,  industrial  and  political,  shall 
be  managed.  There  is  no  doubt  what  the  verdict  will  be. 
We  shall  declare  that  we  are  quite  satisfied  with  things  as 
they  are  and  that  we  see  no  reason  for  making  any  change 
in  the  established  order  of  things.  Fourteen  million  voters 
out  of  the  fifteen  million  will  vote  either  for  Roosevelt  or 
Parker.  Some  one  reading  this  will  possibly  object  to  the 
statement  that  we  Americans  will  by  our  votes  declare  that 
we  are  satisfied.  He  may  say  that  it  is  perfectly  known  to 
every  one  that  90  per  cent,  of  us  Americans  are  anything 
but  satisfied  with  things  as  they  are,  and  that  our  votes  one 
way  or  the  other  do  not  by  any  means  indicate  our  state  of 
satisfaction.  That  because  a  man  votes  for  Roosevelt  it  does 
not  mean  he  is  satisfied  with  his  position  in  life,  not  at  all. 
It  simply  means  that  he  votes  for  Roosevelt  because  he  knows 
that  electing  Parker  will  do  him  no  more  good  than  the 
electing  of  Roosevelt,  and  as  he  has  always  been  a  Repub- 
lican, therefore  he  can  see  no  reason  for  switching.  The 
man  that  votes  for  Parker  will  tell  exactly  the  same  story. 
Nobody  votes  to-day  for  a  party  because  he  votes  for  a 
principle  he  likes.  A  man  votes  to-day  for  his  party  simply 
because  he  has  always  voted  that  way,  and  he  has  always 
voted  that  way  because  his  father  voted  that  way.  The  reason 
of  his  voting  without  an  end  in  view  is  simply  the  stupidity 
of  the  masses,  and  it  is  such  a  gross  stupidity  that  the  op- 
ponents of  extension  of  the  franchise  to  the  propertyless 
classes,  when  arguing  the  question  a  century  ago,  never 
thought  of  it  as  a  factor  that  would  render  the  franchise 
valueless.  And  they  were  no  admirers  of  the  intellect  of  the 
masses,  either.  Before  the  masses  had  the  vote  it  was  always 
argued  that  the  giving  them  the  power  to  vote  was  giving 
them  the  power  to  take  property  from  the  rich  by  law,  and 


Vote  for  Debs.  253 

it  was  assumed  that  once  they  were  given  such  power  it 
would  not  be  long  before  the  power  would  be  exercised. 
However,  this  assumption  was  baseless,  for  it  was  made  with- 
out any  taking  into  account  the  conservative  stupidity  of  the 
human  ass.  For  years  the  masses  have  had  the  power  to 
vote  away  the  poverty  under  which  they  sweat  and  groan, 
and  yet  they  never  attempt  to  exercise  this  power.  Instead 
of  voting  for  what  they  want  they  simply  kick  between 
election  days  and  then  on  election  day  they  vote  for  four 
years  more  of  Poverty  and  Eoosevelt.  If  a  five-year-old  boy 
were  informed  that  he  could  have  an  apple  whenever  he 
asked  for  it,  and  if  when  he  became  hungry  he  did  not  ask 
for  it,  we  would  judge  him  mentally  deficient.  But  when 
we  full-grown  Americans  don't  ask  for  our  apple  when  it 
can  be  had  for  the  asking  we  are  insulted  if  we  are  called 
idiots.  The  apple  that  will  abolish  our  poverty  is  merely 
the  adoption  of  a  different  method  of  distribution  of  the 
wealth  we  produce.  There  is  no  necessity  of  inventing  any 
more  new  processes  of  producing  things.  We  already  produce 
fast  enough  to  abolish  want.  We  don't  distribute  fast  enough 
to  keep  up  with  production.  That's  our  trouble.  To-day 
we  distribute  under  a  competitive  wage  system  which  limits 
us  at  best  to  a  wage  just  above  starvation  no  matter  how 
much  we  may  produce.  In  fact  we  think  we  are  rather  lucky 
to  be  sure  of  getting  wages  at  all  under  our  present  com- 
petitive system.  Now,  all  this  can  and  will  be  changed  as 
soon  as  we  wish  to  make  the  change,  and  not  before.  The 
way  to  make  the  change  is  to  say  to  ourselves  that  we  wish 
to  make  it  and  the  way  to  talk  thusly  to  ourselves  is  to  cast 
our  ballot  for  a  political  party  that  advocates  the  abolition 
of  the  competitive  system  of  distribution  and  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  co-operative  system  of  distribution.  That  party 
is  the  Socialist  Party,  and  their  candidate  at  the  next  Presi- 
dential election  is  Mr.  Debs.  If  you  wish  to  abolish  pov- 
erty, Vote  for  Debs. 


254  IWilshire  Editorials. 


WAR  OR  SOCIALISM  A  NECESSITY 

WE  are  seeing  to-day  one  of  the  greatest  booms  ever 
known  on  the  New  York  stock  market.  Prices  in 
many  cases  have  doubled  during  the  last  two  years. 
It  is  an  historical  fact  that  every  great  war  has  been  followed 
by  a  period  of  great  prosperity,  and  it  is  equally  true  that  as 
soon  as  the  effects  of  the  war  wore  off  a  period  of  depression 
followed. 

The  Spanish-American  War  began  April,  1898,  and  closed 
in  August  of  the  same  year. 

The  British  war  with  the  Boers  in  South  Africa  began  in 
October,  1899,  and  was  concluded  in  May,  1902. 

Within  two  years  (in  1903)  of  the  close  of  the  Boer  War  the 
boom  which  it  had  caused  had  worn  off,  and  things  com- 
mercially in  this  country  were  looking  very  black. 

Two  years  ago  the  prices  of  stocks  were  almost  at  their 
lowest,  and  had  it  not  been  for  the  Russian-Japanese  War, 
which  commenced  in  February,  1904,  and  closed  in  Septem- 
ber, 1905,  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  depression  of  1903-04 
would  have  by  this  time  become  most  acute.  Judging  from 
the  past,  we  are  to  have,  by  September,  1907,  or  two  years 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  Russian-Japanese  War,  a  period  of 
great  trade  depression,  which  maybe  can  only  be  relieved  by 
one  or  two  things,  viz. — another  war  or  Socialism. 

It  is  up  to  the  working  class  of  this  country  to  decide 
whether  they  prefer  being  decimated  by  war  in  order  that  the 
survivors  may  have  such  "prosperity"  as  we  have  to-day,  or 
whether  they  prefer  to  have  Socialism  and  real  prosperity 
for  all. 


We  Feed  Our  Buffaloes  But  Starve  Ourselves.  255 


WE  FEED  OUR  BUFFALOES,  BUT  STARVE 
OURSELVES 

E  Americans  are  all  right  when  it  comes  to  raising 
buffaloes,  according  to  the  following  from  the  New 
York  Commercial'. 


W 


The  buffalo  herd  in  Yellowstone  Park,  started  by  the  United 
States  Government  and  during  the  past  few  years  very  carefully 
watched  to  prevent  the  death  of  the  young,  is  increasing  rapidly, 
and  will  this  year  number  between  20  and  25  more  animals  than 
a  year  ago  at  this  time.  The  herd  is  in  excellent  condition.  It 
has  wintered  well,  and  the  calves  are  growing  fast  and  appear 
to  be  sound  and  strong.  It  has  been  the  wish  of  the  government 
officers  to  increase  the  herd  until  it  resembles  the  old-time  herds 
which  covered  the  western  prairies.  The  experiment  of  pro- 
pagating the  animals  is  definitely  a  success,  and  the  army  offi- 
cers, upon  whom  the  work  has  largely  devolved,  are  correspond- 
ingly pleased.  Major  Pitcher  of  the  United  States  army  repre- 
sents the  government  in  the  park,  and  is  practically  and  offi- 
cially the  custodian  of  the  herd. 

The  buffalo  don't  need  to  struggle  for  a  living.  Feed  is  good; 
the  valleys  give  them  splendid  shelter,  and  they  have  the  pick  of 
grazing  lands  over  which  to  roam. 

It's  very  funny  that  our  government  can  see  the  advantage 
of  feeding  its  buffalo  babies,  fixing  things  so  "the  buffalo  don't 
have  to  struggle  for  a  living  when  feed  is  good  and  plenty," 
and  yet  when  it  comes  to  fixing  things  for  its  voters'  babies  it 
treats  them  so  badly  that*  the  infant  death-rate  in  New  York 
and  our  other  big  Eastern  cities  beats  the  world. 

If  the  government  can  see  that  a  buffalo  baby  to  live  needs 
good  food  and  fresh  air,  why  can  it  not  see  that  a  boy  or  girl 
baby  wants  good  food  and  fresh  air  ?    Why  is  it  ? 

If  good  food  is  good  for  buffaloes,  why  does  Congress  re- 
fuse to  pass  a  pure  food  bill  that  would  give  men  good  food? 

It's  also  interesting  to  note  that  the  federal  army  is  used 
to  protect  the  lives  of  buffaloes,  whereas  its  common  use  for 
men  is  to  slaughter  them. 


256  Wilshiee   Editorials. 


THAT  5x4  MERGER  JOKE 

THE  Merger  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  North- 
ern Securities  case  has  many  funny  sides  to  those  who 
have  read  the  dissenting  justices'  opinions. 
In  the  first  place  to  understand  properly  the  joke  we  must 
never  lose  sight  of  the  fundamental  cause  of  the  merger ;  viz., 
over-production  of  railroads.  There  were  too  many  roads  in 
the  Northwest  and  unless  they  combined  there  would  be  a 
scramble  for  freight,  a  cutting  of  prices,  general  demoraliza- 
tion and  bankruptcy.  We  must  remember  that  this  terror 
of  rate-cutting  was  the  cause  of  the  merger,  and  that  there  ex- 
ists to-day  the  very  same  necessity  for  combination  that  there 
did  when  the  merger  was  formed.  The  Supreme  Court  de- 
cision cannot  alter  that  condition  in  the  least.  Either  a  new 
method  of  combination  must  be  arranged  or  the  roads  will 
soon  be  fighting  again  like  Kilkenny  cats  and  the  fight  will 
continue  till  the  death — death  meaning  the  absorption  of  the 
dead  by  the  living.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  when  we  remember 
that  the  fight  is  between  Morgan  on  the  one  side  and  Kocke- 
feller  on  the  other  and  that  neither  one  of  these  giants  would 
dare  engage  in  any  serious  encounter  one  with  the  other  for 
fear  the  fall  of  the  vanquished  would  bring  down  the  whole 
financial  firmament,  we  can  see  how  absurd  it  is  even  to  con- 
ceive of  any  real  fight  starting  up.  Men  do  not  commit  sui- 
cide, financial  or  physical,  at  the  order  of  Congress,  or  even 
of  a  5x4  Supreme  Court. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  there  are  more  than  enough 
roads  in  the  West  to  do  the  business,  and  this  must  result 
either  in  a  suicidal  cutting  of  rates  or  a  combination — either 
life  or  death.  If  we  are  to  have  railroads  we  must  have  a 
combination,  and  whether  it  takes  the  temporary  form  of  a 
"gentlemen's  agreement" — we  say  temporary,  for  such  agree- 
ments never  last  long — or  whether  it  takes  the  form  of  a 
permanent  holding  company,  such  as  would  have  been  the 
Northern  Securities  Company  had  it  been  allowed  to  live, 
is  of  no  great  moment. 


That  5x4  Merger  Joke.  257 

Just  now  it  looks  to  us  that  inasmuch  as  the  Securities 
Company  must  part  with  the  control  of  either  the  Northern 
Pacific  Railway  or  the  Great  Northern  Railway  because  it 
was  formed  to  take  over  competing  and  parallel  roads  that  the 
simplest  way  out  of  the  difficulty  would  be  for  the  Union 
Pacific  Railway  to  issue  bonds  and  take  over  all  the  securities 
now  held  by  the  Securities  Company.  The  Union  Pacific 
Railway  Company  has  been  in  existence  for  years,  and  no  one 
could  allege  that  it  had  been  formed  to  effect  the  combina- 
tion, and  as  the  Supreme  Court*  seems  to  base  its  decision 
largely  upon  what  the  indent  of  the  incorporators  of  the  com- 
pany was  at  the  time  of  the  incorporation  the  purchase  of  the 
assets  of  the  Northern  Securities  Company  by  the  Union  Pa- 
cific would  be  legal  from  that  point  of  view.  The  Union  Pa- 
cific already  owns  one-fifth  of  the  Northern  Securities  Com- 
pany. Why  should  it  not  own  the  whole  issue  ?  However,  we 
make  no  charge  for  this  advice  to  Rockefeller,  Morgan  & 
Co.,  so  they  are  at  liberty  to  disregard  it. 

A  similar  view  is  held  by  our  old  friend  Walter  S.  Logan, 
President  of  the  National  Bar  Association,  a  man — consid- 
ering the  position  he  holds,  a  corporation  lawyer — who  is 
probably  the  greatest  radical  we  know.  He  talks  the  talk 
of  a  Socialist  when  it  comes  to  denouncing  wealth,  but  when 
it  comes  to  suggesting  a  remedy  Logan  is  as  great  a  child  as 
Hearst. 

Logan  says  that  the  decision  will  cause  a  re-adjustment  of 
political  lines,  but  when  he  adds  that  after  all  it  amounts 
to  nothing  because  the  law  can  be  so  easily  evaded  we  do 
not  grasp  his  logic.     Logan  sys: 

"But  the  law  does  not  go  far  enough.  If  Morgan  and  Rocke- 
feller adopt  one  of  the  several  ways  that  are  open  for  evasion 
of  the  law  the  people  will  have  no  remedy.  Any  trust  company, 
for  instance,  that  has  been  in  existence  for  some  time  and  that 
was  organized  for  general  business,  could  buy  the  assets  of  the 
Northern  Securities  Company  at  a  receiver's  sale,  and  that 
method,  it  seems  to  me,  will  be  the  one  adopted  as  being  most 
simple.  The  Erie  Railroad  could  also,  I  presume,  buy  it  if  its 
charter  is  broad  enough  to  permit  of  such  investments.  But  there 
would  be  no  doubt  about  such  a  company  as  the  Union  Trust 
Company,  for  instance,  having  the  power." 

If  this,  then,  is  the  true  state  of  the  case,  and  the  vaunted 
decision  simply  means  an  auction  of  the  Northern  Securities 


258  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Company  to  some  Trust  Company,  to  what  end  has  been  all 
this  rejoicing  of  the  Hearst  journals,  and  why  has  it  been 
necessary  for  Attorney-General  Knox  to  hasten  to  announce 
that  he  and  Roosevelt  were  not  going  to  "run  amuck"  ?  One 
would  think  auctions  were  dangerous.  The  great  advance 
in  the  price  of  the  Northern  Securities  stock  after  the  deci- 
sion does  not  seem  to  indicate  any  great  fear  of  either  auctions 
or  amucks. 


How  We  Will  Divide.  259 


HOW  WE  WILL  DIVIDE 

THE  standard  of  value  can  be  determined  by  the  human 
labor  time  required  to  make  the  article.  It  is  im- 
probable that  there  will  be  any  difference  in  the  valu- 
ation of  one  man's  time  over  that  of  another.  In  the  first 
place,  under  Socialism,  everyone  will  be  educated  and  fitted 
to  do  what  he  is  capable  of  doing.  To-day  there  is  many  a 
man  who  might  have  been  a  good  doctor  or  a  lawyer  or  an 
artist,  who  owing  to  poverty  could  not  educate  himself  and  so 
is  merely  a  common  laborer. 

Under  Socialism  a  man  can  always  develop  the  best  that 
is  within  him,  and  the  system  of  education  will  be  such  that 
it  will  be  developed.  Instead  of  men  being  divided  into  hod- 
carriers  and  musicians  it  will  be  the  labor  that  will  be  divided 
and  not  the  laborers.  A  man  can  have  his  life  so  ordered 
that  he  may  have  all  his  faculties,  mental,  physical  and 
spiritual,  developed  by  the  exercise  of  his  daily  work.  There 
is  many  a  professional  man  to-day  whose  brain  would  be 
stronger,  health  better,  and  life  longer  if  he  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  perform  some  useful  outdoor  work.  He  himself 
knows  it  too,  and  wishes  it,  but  the  conditions  of  our  com- 
petitive system  are  such  that  it  is  practically  impossible  for 
him  to  join  the  two  lives,  the  physical  and  the  mental.  As 
for  the  hod-carrier  of  to-day  trying  to  exercise  his  brain  and 
soul  by  painting  a  few  Madonnas  or  composing  a  Ninth  Sym- 
phony, the  mere  mention  of  the  idea  conveys  its  absurd  im- 
possibility. Under  Socialism  work  will  be  so  varied,  so  pleas- 
ant, so  light,  that  it  will  be  done  as  a  pleasure  and  not  as  a 
task.  Men  will  feel  that  work  then  is  just  as  much  a  ne- 
cessity of  their  life  as  do  their  own  hearts  find  it  a  necessity 
for  the  heart's  life  to  pump  blood.  Does  your  heart  ask  pay 
for  beating  ?  Man  in  a  natural  state  will  ask  for  nothing  bet- 
ter than  the  opportunity  to  work.  A  bee  or  an  ant  or  a  beaver 
finds  no  greater  pleasure  in  life  than  to  work.  Man,  after  all, 
is  simply  an  animal  with  a  soul — what  is  fundamental  to 
the  animal  is  fundamental  to  man.    Work  is  life. 


260  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Hence  under  Socialism  the  idea  of  work  as  a  task  to  be 
avoided  will  be  as  absurd  as  thinking  of  a  honey-bee  flitting 
from  flower  to  flower  sipping  honey  as  performing  a  task 
intensely  disagreeable  to  it,  and  that  if  it  could  it  would  be 
playing  golf  or  driving  an  automobile  instead  of  gathering 
honey. 

All  this  may  sound  too  dreamy  for  the  man  who  to-day 
is  so  saturated  with  ideas,  the  result  of  his  present  environ- 
ment, that  he  cannot  imagine  how  men  would  act  in  another 
state. 

It  would  be  hard  to  convince  a  bull-head  fish  that  if  he  had 
lungs  instead  of  gills  he  would  prefer  living  upon  dry  land. 
Some  men  are  merelv  advanced  bull-heads.  You  cannot 
argue  with  them.  All  you  can  do  is  to  use  a  scoop-net  and 
dip  them  out  of  their  slime  and  land  them  gently  and  firmly 
in  another  life. 

Mr.  Eockefeller  with  his  trusts  is  the  simoon  which  is  go- 
ing to  dry  up  the  slime  wherein  these  human  bull-heads  wal- 
low. The  first  thing  they  will  know  they  will  be  kicking 
around  on  a  dust  heap  and  must  develop  Socialist  lungs,  for 
they  will  find  their  old  capitalist  gills  will  be  no  good.  We 
will  not  be  doing  much  calculating  about  the  exact  division 
of  things  produced  when  we  have  Socialism.  The  scramble 
will  be  for  the  privilege  of  working;  not  for  the  privilege 
of  taking.  The  fun  will  be  more  in  the  making  of  the  pud- 
ding than  in  the  eating  of  it.  These  people  who  are  worry- 
ing so  much  about  how  they  are  going  to  divide  up  the  ome- 
lette before  they  find  the  eggs  to  make  the  omelette,  should 
remember  that  to-day  they  at  best  can  only  get  the  egg  shells, 
and  that  they  can't  lose  very  much  by  taking  a  chance  of  adopt- 
ing a  plan  which  promises  them  the  eggs.  To-day  we  do  not 
profess  to  give  products  according  as  a  man  has  produced. 
We  simply  hand  the  eggs  over  to  the  capitalist  and  stand 
on  our  hind  legs  begging  and  whining  for  the  shells.  When 
it  amuses  him  to  toss  them  to  us  we  gratefully  wag  our  little 
tails.  Under  Socialism  we  would  at  least  live  under  a  system 
that  professed  to  give  to  the  workers  and  did  not  profess  to 
give  to  drones  simply  because  they  happened  to  have  a  rich 
father. 

The  theory  is  amusing  that  Socialism  by  enforcing  econ- 
omy will  cut  off  demand  for  luxuries,  for  variety,  so  that  a 


How  We  Will  Divide.  261 

man  will  be  compelled  to  wear  a  home-spun  suit,  eat  oatmeal, 
drink  water,  stop  smoking,  and  buy  only  of  the  state  store. 
Under  Socialism  a  man  will  get  what  he  produces.  If  he 
wishes  champagne,  cigars,  automobiles,  diamonds,  etc.,  no- 
body will  object  either  to  the  wish  or  its  realization,  but  the 
condition  upon  which  he  gets  them  will  be  the  giving  of  his 
labor  in  exchange  for  the  labor  which  produces  what  he  gets. 
For  instance,  if  he  wants  a  pink  pearl  ground  up  in  his 
coffee  every  morning  then  he  will  either  have  to  fish  for  the 
pearl  himself  or  give  up  his  labor  to  the  chap  who  does  the 
pearl  fishing.  As  pearls  are  not  found  in  every  oyster,  and 
as  it  takes,  say,  a  week's  hard  and  dangerous  labor  to  get  one 
pearl  it  means  that  the  man  with  a  penchant  for  drinking 
ground  pearls  would  have  to  work  a  week  to  pay  for  one 
drink.  Probably  after  a  few  such  drinks  and  after  working 
a  few  months  to  pay  for  them  he  would  decide  of  his  own 
accord  to  give  up  his  extravagant  taste.  Under  Socialism  the 
ordinary  worker's  income  will  be  augmented  many  times  its 
present  size,  and  he  will  spend  it  -as  he  pleases/  The  com- 
ing of  Socialism  will  not  be  so  very  different  from  what  would 
happen  to  the  man  who  is  now  getting  two  dollars  a  day 
and  who  had  a  sudden  raise  to  twenty  dollars  a  day.  The 
usual  thing  to-day  is  that  he  promptly  raises  his  standard 
of  living  to  correspond  to  his  larger  income.  He  could  if  he 
chose  work  only  one-tenth  of  the  time,  but  he  rarely  makes 
such  a  choice.  He  will  stop  living  at  cheap  restaurants  and 
patronize  better  ones.  It  will  be  the  same  under  Socialism — 
exactly  the  same.  Man  will  have  more  and  he  will  spend 
more.  Supply  will  increase  and  with  increased  supply  will 
come  increased  demand  to  equalize  things. 

Private  business  under  Socialism  will  not  necessarily  be 
wiped  out.  I  may  like  a  peculiar  brand  of  wine  or  an  odd 
kind  of  cheese  or  rag-time  music.  The  state  may  not  bother 
to  furnish  me  with  such  things.  Do  I  lose  them  ?  Not  much. 
I  have  plenty  of  money — Socialist  money — and  I  use  it  to  pay 
the  maker  of  my  peculiar  wine,  my  cheese,  my  music.  I  am 
satisfied,  for  I  get  what  I  want.  He  is  satisfied,  for  he  gets 
paid  for  his  work  and  he  produces  what  he  likes  to  produce. 
If  I  want  merely  pure  water  the  state  will  be  pretty  sure  to 
be  in  a  position  to  give  me  what  I  want  for  a  reasonable  pay- 
ment in  Socialist  money — time  checks,  earned  by  me  with 


262  Wilshire   Editorials. 

my  work.  My  work  may  be  in  the  state  water  works,  or  it 
may  be  singing  rag-time  music  for  Jones  who  has  given  me 
his  time  checks  which  he  may  have  earned  working  in  the 
city  gas  works. 

The  time-check  system  offers  a  simple  mechanical  system 
for  determining  what  each  man  should  get.  That  we  shall 
ever  use  any  such  a  system  for  any  great  length  of  time  I 
hardly  believe. 

Your  heart  doesn't  wake  you  up  in  the  morning  by  a 
knock  on  your  ribs  and  demand  pay  for  the  work  it  did  while 
you  slept.  If  you  had  to  busy  yourself  determining  exactly 
how  much  blood  you  should  give  to  each  of  your  organs  every 
day  according  to  the  work  that  organ  did  for  you,  then  your 
life  would  indeed  be  a  burden.  It  would  be  less  wearisome 
for  you  to  say  "grab  wha£  you  can  and  let  the  slow  grabber 
starve."  Similarly,  if  we  are  going  forever  to  minutely  ap- 
portion to  each  according  as  he  produces,  fhe  bore  of  it  all 
for  eternity  is  worse  than  letting  Rockefeller  and  Morgan 
grab  what  they  can  and  then  our  grabbing  what  is  left. 
Socialism  means  the  extermination  of  grab  as  well  as  of 
graft. 


What  Good  Is  Government  Ownership.         263 


WHAT   GOOD   IS  GOVERNMENT  OWNER- 

SHIP? 

WHAT  good  would  the  government  ownership  of  utili- 
ties be? 
I  must  say  that  the  answers  given  by  many  Social- 
ists to  this  reasonable  question  are  not   as  convincing  as 
might  be. 

With  the  present  competitive  system  remaining  in  opera- 
tion government  ownership  is  not  necessarily  any  better  for 
the  people  than  private  ownership.  It  might,  and  probably 
would,  be  somewhat  better,  but  I  am  not  talking  about  the 
"might  be's,"  I  speak  of  the  "must  be's."  As  often  pointed 
out,  the  Post  Office  is  a  nest  of  mismanagement  and  cor- 
ruption, and  yet  it  is  under  government  ownership.  Then 
why  urge  that  the  railroads  or  other  public  utilities  be  put 
under  government  ownership? 

I  don't.    That  is,  I  don't  urge  very  hard. 

I  can  see  some  of  my  readers  gasp  with  astonishment. 

What's  this  ?  Wilshire  not  urging  government  ownership ! 
Why,  we  thought  that  government  ownership  was  an  essential 
part  of  the  Socialist  program! 

Not  at  all.  If  these  gaspers  would  read  my  editorials 
long  enough  and  carefully  enough  they  would  see  that  I  am 
after  the  establishment  of  the  co-operative  commonwealth, 
and  it  is  simply  in  order  to  have  a  basis  for  this  co-operative 
commonwealth  that  I  declare  for  the  government  ownership* 
of  the  machinery  of  production.  I  am  cold;  and  to  prevent 
myself  perishing  of  cold  I  demand  clothing.  Incidentally 
the  clothing  may  make  me  more  beautiful  to  look  upon  at  the 
Horse  Show;  it  also  may  satisfy  my  ideas  of  modesty,  but 
fundamentally  it  is  neither  modesty  nor  appearance  that 
necessitates  the  clothing.  It  is  absolute  necessity  of  pro- 
tection from  cold.  But  why  do  I  wish  protection  from 
cold?  Simply  because  I  have  an  instinct  which  urges  me  to 
live  rather  than  die.     So  that  when  I  ask  for  clothing  it  ia 


264  Wilshire   Editorials. 

really  asking  for  life,  and  yet  some  might  be  short-sighted 
enough  to  think  that  the  only  reason  I  wished  clothing  was 
for  the  appearance  of  things. 

Government  ownership  might  and  probably  would  be  of 
general  benefit  to  the  community  under  our  competitive  sys- 
tem. We  would  probably  have  better  rates  and  more  com- 
fortable transportation.  The  roads  would  be  run  for  the 
benefit  of  the  public  instead  of  to  make  dividends  for  the 
Vanderbilts.  At  least  that  would  be  the  theory.  It  might 
not  work  out  that  way,  however,  because  the  same  interests 
which  now  control  the  post  office  might  control  the  railways. 

If  the  people  were  as  negligent  of  their  interests  then  as 
they  are  now,  government  ownership  of  railways  under  the 
existing  competitive  system  might  give  us  no  benefits  at  all. 
This,  I  admit,  is  unlikely,  but  still  it  is  not  impossible. 
However,  under  a  co-operative  system  it  would  be  different. 
In  the  first  place,  inasmuch  as  all  property  would  be  owned 
by  the  State,  there  would  be  no  powerful  group  of  private 
property  owners  to  dictate  the  policy  of  the  State  for  their 
own  benefit  at  the  expense  of  the  non-property  owners  as  to- 
day, for  instance,  the  railway  owners  dictate  the  policy  of 
the  government  regarding  post  office  affairs  so  that  the  rail- 
ways get  eAcessive  rates  for  carrying  mail. 

Again,  with  a  co-operative  system  the  products  of  industry 
would  of  necessity  be  distributed  to  the  workers,  as  there 
would  be  no  one  else  having  any  claim  upon  such  products. 

If  we  allowed  private  ownership  of  the  railways  and  other 
machinery  to  remain,  then  those  owners  would  naturally  have 
some  rights  accruing  from  their  title  of  ownership;  other- 
wise what  would  be  the  use  of  their  having  a  title?  Now, 
the  only  rights  that  we  can  conceive  of  as  being  of  any  par- 
ticular use  would  be  the  rights  entitling  them  to  the  products 
of  labor  without  themselves  working.  If  such  were  the  case 
and  they  took  such  products  it  is  evident  that  the  workers 
would  not  be  getting  all  their  share  of  the  product  and  we 
would  not  be  enjoying  the  co-operative  system  which  we  set 
out  to  establish.  The  absolute  necessity  of  public  ownership 
is  palpable  if  we  wish  to  establish  the  co-operative  system. 
Of  course,  as  long  as  we  have  our  competitive  wage  system, 
which  keeps  wages  down  to  the  mere  level  of  subsistence,  we 
cannot  hope  to  abolish  poverty,  and  therefore  it  is  superfluous 


What  Good  Is  Government  Ownership.         265 

to  argue  as  to  the  advantage  of  substituting  the  co-operation 
for  competition. 

The  present  government  office-holders  outside  the  classified 
service  are  naturally  an  incompetent  lot  of  grafters,  taking 
them  as  a  whole,  for  they  are  not  there  to  serve  the  State  but 
to  rob  it.  This  is  bound  to  continue  as  long  as  we  have  our 
system  of  private  ownership  of  capital.  Private  owners  of 
capital  will  always  corrupt  our  political  officials  as  long  as 
we  have  on  the  one  side  men  with  money  who  will  pay  it  to 
buy  franchises  and  on  the  other  side  aldermen  without  money 
having  franchises  to  dispose  of,  in  which  their  individual  in- 
terest as  one  of  a  large  community  is  much  smaller  than 
their  individual  interest  in  getting  the  whole  of  the  bribe 
from  the  capitalist. 

A  Broadway  franchise  may  be  worth  five  million  dollars 
to  the  City  of  New  York.  To  me  as  alderman,  it  is  worth 
exactly  one  five-millionth  part  of  the  five  million  dollars,  or 
one  dollar,  for  there  are  five  million  citizens  to  share  it  with 
me.  Therefore,  if  I  am  paid  anything  over  the  dollar  for 
my  vote  in  favor  of  granting  the  franchise  I  am  so  much 
ahead.  As  long  as  this  condition  of  affairs  exists  there  will 
always  be  men  who  will  buy  aldermen,  and  there  will  always 
be  salable  aldermen.  Hence,  if  we  wish  to  have  honest  alder- 
men we  must  have  complete  public  ownership,  in  order  to  do 
away  with  the  men  who  do  the  buying  of  aldermen.  Where 
there  are  no  buyers,  of  necessity  there  can  be  no  sellers. 

Now,  as  to  the  harm  combinations  do  the  public.  The 
Socialists  hold  that  the  combination  of  capitalists  does  not 
necessarily  do  any  more  harm  to  the  people  than  does  the 
single  capitalist,  but  that  the  combination  has  more  power 
to  do  such  harm,  and  when  it  is  to  its  interest  to  do  it,  it  is 
in  a  much  better  position  to  do  the  harm.  However,  it  is 
not  the  harm  that  any  particular  combination  can  do  or 
actually  does  do  that  is  of  such  great  importance  anyway. 
The  mere  matter  as  to  whether  the  Standard  Oil  Company 
charges  an  exorbitant  price  for  oil,  or  whether  it  sells  it  for 
only  a  fair  price,  is  of  no  great  economic  import.  If  it 
charges  too  much,  that  is,  if  it  charges  a  profit  that  is  greater 
than  what  a  capitalist  ordinarily  expects  from  the  sale  of  his 
manufactures,  then  it  simply  means  that  the  workman  who 
buys  the  oil  must  get  higher  wages  to  pay  for  it,  and  this 


266  Wilshire   Editorials. 

higher  wage  comes  out  of  his  employer  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Standard  Oil  Company.  This  means  that  Rockefeller  comes 
into  possession  of  so  many  more  dollars  to  invest  than  he 
otherwise  would  have  had,  and  that  the  employer  who  paid 
the  excess  wages  has  so  many  dollars  less  to  invest.  Of  course, 
it  may  be  that  the  immediate  employer  may  not  be  the  loser, 
for  he  may  add  to  the  price  of  his  goods  the  excess  of  wages  he 
has  to  pay,  and  so  shift  the  burden  to  some  other  capitalist. 
The  point  is  that  the  high  price  of  oil  does  not  economically 
hurt  the  workman  because  his  wages  are  based  on  the  cost  of 
living.  Oil  is  a  necessity  of  life,  just  as  is  water,  or  bread,  or 
meat.  He  must  have  sufficient  wages  to  buy  these  necessities. 
If  the  price  goes  up  his  wages  must  go  up  or  he  will  starve 
to  death,  for  there  is  practically  no  margin  for  him  to  in- 
fringe upon.  A  high  price  of  oil  is  a  price  made  at  the 
general  expense  of  the  capitalist  class  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Standard  Oil  Company.  But  this  only  means  that  the  Stand- 
ard stockholders  have  the  directing  of  the  investment  or  the 
spending  of  a  certain  greater  portion  of  the  surplus  products 
called  profits,  instead  of  a  certain  other  set  of  capitalists  hav- 
ing it.  To  the  community  as  a  whole  it  is  of  no  practical 
importance  whether  capitalist  Rockefeller  or  capitalist  Mor- 
gan gets  the  surplus. 

And,  it  is  asked,  are  not  Rockefeller  and  Morgan  "the  peo- 
ple" ?  And,  if  so,  what  do  we  mean  by  saying  that  the  people 
should  own  the  trusts  when  they  already  own  them?  Yes, 
Rockefeller  and  Morgan  are  the  people,  or  rather,  some  of 
them,  but  the  trouble  is  that  the  people  are  not  Rockefeller 
and  Morgan.  The  Morgans  are  very  considerably  less  than 
ten  per  cent,  of  the  people.  We  wish  to  make  one  hundred 
per  cent,  of  the  people  Morgans. 

And  why  do  not  laborers  combine  and  set  up  shop  for 
themselves?  Why,  this  is  exactly  what  the  Socialists  pro- 
pose. Only  we  do  not  propose  that  the  shops  should  be  small 
competing  ones.  That  would  not  make  things  any  better 
than  they  are  to-day.  Suppose  a  few  hundred  workers  should 
combine  and  try  to  run  a  blast  furnace.  Where  would  they 
land,  with  pig  iron  selling  at  less  than  cost,  as  it  is  to-day, 
through  competition  and  over-production?  Would  the  fact 
that  they  owned  the  furnace  do  the  workers  any  good?  Not 
at  all ;  for  instead  of  getting  wages  for  their  work  they  would 


What  Good  Is  Government  Ownership.  267 

be  forced  to  pay  assessments  to  keep  the  furnace  in  blast. 
Of  course,  this  is  an  unusual  case.  Pig  iron  is  not  always 
selling  less  than  cost;  but  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  now  a 
strong  tendency  for  prices  of  all  commodities  to  fall  below 
cost,  and  there  is  no  economic  reason  why,  if  production 
keeps  up  to  the  present  standard,  we  should  not  have  over- 
production and  a  general  statj  of  prices  being  less  than  cost. 

No,  we  do  not  wish  any  small  production,  with  the  co-op- 
erative owners  competing  for  the  sale  of  their  products  in  the 
existing  capitalistic  field.  We  wish  national  ownership  and 
the  complete  elimination  of  competition  in  the  sale  of  prod- 
ucts as  well  as  in  the  sale  of  labor. 

We  do  not  look  forward  to  trade-unions  taking  the  place 
of  capitalists.  We  look  forward  to  the  people  as  a  whole  tak- 
ing charge  of  the  great  industrial  functions,  and  regulating 
production  upon  the  basis  of  what  the  laborers  desire,  and 
regulating  distribution  upon  the  basis  of  what  they  produce. 


268  Wilshire   Editorials. 


THE  TWO  NATIONS 

FOR  many  years,  until  1902,  a  certain  man  Loud  has  rep- 
resented the  Southern  Pacific  Railway  and  Wells,  Fargo 
&  Co.'s  Express  in  Congress,  although  nominally  repre- 
senting the  people  of  California.  Loud  has  been  notorious  for 
his  attacks  on  any  project  that  might  extend  the  utility  of  the 
post-office,  and  has  publicly  declared  that  it  would  be  a  good 
thing  if  the  post-office  were  in  the  hands  of  a  private  corpora- 
tion. He  not  only  antagonized  the  post-office  generally,  but 
he  incautiously  went  so  far  as  to  extend  his  antagonism  to 
the  post-office  employees.  They  wanted  fair  pay  for  their 
work,  and  would  probably  have  gained  their  point  had  not 
Loud  taken  it  upon  himself  to  defeat  their  bill.  The  result 
was  that  the  post-office  employees  "banded"  together  and  two 
years  ago  made  a  fight  on  Loud's  re-election  and  defeated  him. 
There  is  no  charge  that  money  or  undue  influence  was  used 
against  Loud.  The  post-office  employees  simply  pleaded  with 
the  voters  in  Loud's  district  to  send  some  man  to  Congress 
that  would  stand  for  labor  instead  of  capital.  The  electors 
responded  and  Loud  was  defeated.  But  Loud  was  a  particular 
friend  of  the  President;  so  he  did  not  lose  his  grip  at  the 
public  crib.  He  has  been  appointed,  of  all  men,  at  a  salary 
of  $7,500  a  year,  to  represent  the  TJnited  States  at  the  In- 
ternational Postal  Congress  which  meets  at  Rome  next  sum- 
mer. Loud  will  no  doubt  tell  the  congress  that  the  United 
States  is  contemplating  selling  the  post-office  to  Wells,  Fargo 
&  Co/s  Express  Co.  He  will  certainly  say  we  ought  to  make 
such  a  sale. 

The  temerity  of  the  working  men  taking  to  the  ballot  as  a 
method  of  obtaining  their  rights  strikes  President  Roosevelt 
as  most,  unmannerly  and  dishonorable. 

The  letter  carriers,  both  municipal  and  rural,  are  as  a  whole 
an  excellent  body  of  public  servants.  They  should  be  amply 
paid.  But  their  payment  must  be  obtained  by  arguing  their 
claims  fairly  and  honorably  before  the  Congress,  and  not  band- 
ing together  for  the  defeat  of  those  Congressmen  who  refuse  to 
give  promises  which  they  cannot  in  conscience  give. 

Working  men  are  to  politely  stand  hat  in  hand  before  their 
servants,  for  a  Congressman  is  but  a  public  servant,  and  to 


The  Two  Nations.  269 

humbly  plead  their  wishes  and  then  bow  themselves  out  with 
an  apology  for  giving  trouble,  and  then  wait  results.  If  no 
results  come,  they  must  be  patient  and  not  presume  to  send 
some  one  else  to  Congress  who  will  be  more  open  to  sugges- 
tions even  after  they  have  tried  the  bowing  and  scraping  game 
unsuccessfully  for  years. 

This  idea  of  Koosevelfs  that  a  Congressman  has  a  divine 
right  to  rule  instead  of  being  merely  a  public  servant  to  obey 
the  public  will,  is  about  the  most  remarkable  utterance  ever 
given  forth  by  an  American  President.  Not  only  does  Koose- 
velt  object  to  political  action  of  working  men,  but  he  is  espe- 
cially severe  upon  any  resort  to  violence.    He  says : 

But  when  any  labor  union  seeks  improper  ends,  or  seeks  to 
achieve  proper  ends  by  improper  means,  all  good  citizens  and 
more  especially  all  honorable  public  servants  must  oppose  the 
wrongdoing  as  resolutely  as  they  would  oppose  the  wrongdoing 
of  any  great  corporation.  Of  course  any  violence,  brutality,  or 
corruption  should  not  for  one  moment  be  tolerated. 

Mr.  Eoosevelt  says  nothing  about  corruption  or  violence  if 
committed  by  capitalists.  He  has  nothing  to  say  about  the 
action  of  General  Bell  of  Colorado. 

But  while  he  denounces  violence  by  trade  unions,  no  mat- 
ter how  just  may  be  their  cause,  he  commends  violence  if  done 
by  a  nation  in  the  cause  of  justice. 

There  are  kinds  of  peace  which  are  highly  undesirable,  which 
are  in  the  long  run  as  destructive  as  any  war.  Tyrants  and  op- 
pressors have  many  times  made  a  wilderness  and  call  it  peace. 
Many  times  peoples  who  were  slothful  or  timid  or  shortsighted, 
who  had  been  enervated  by  ease  or  luxury,  or  misled  by  false 
teachings,  have  shrunk  in  ud  manly  fashion  from  doing  duty  that 
was  stern  and  that  needed  self-sacrifice,  and  have  sought  to  hide 
from  their  own  minds  their  shortcomings,  their  ignoble  motives, 
by  calling  them  love  of  peace.  The  peace  of  tyrannous  terror, 
the  peace  of  craven  weakness,  the  peace  of  injustice,  all  these 
should  be  shunned  as  we  shun  unrighteous  war.  The  goal  to  set 
before  us  as  a  nation,  the  goal  which  should  be  set  before  all 
mankind,  is  the  attainment  of  the  peace  of  justice,  of  the  peace 
which  comes  when  each  nation  is  not  merely  safeguarded  in  its 
own  rights,  but  scrupulously  recognizes  and  performs  its  duty 
toward  others.  Generally  peace  tells  for  righteousness;  but  if 
there  is  conflict  between  the  two,  then  our  fealty  is  due  first  to 
the  cause  of  righteousness.  Unrighteous  wars  are  common,  and 
unrighteous  peace  is  rare;  but  both  should  be  shunned.  The 
right  of  freedom  and  the  responsibility  for  the  exercise  of  that 
right  cannot  be  divorced.    One  of  our  great  poets  has  well  and 


270  Wilshire   Editorials. 

finely  said  that  freedom  is  not  a  gift  that  tarries  long  in  the 
hands  of  cowards. 

Why  do  nations  fight  ?  Usually  because  one  nation  thinks 
it  will  experience  an  economic  gain  by  resorting  to  violence. 
Because  it  thinks,  or  at  any  rate  alleges  it  thinks,  that  justice 
will  not  prevail  unless  it  goes  to  war.  There  was  never  a  war 
except  both  belligerents  stoutly  maintained  that  each  was 
fighting  for  justice,  and  the  onlooker  has  usually  a  difficult 
problem  in  deciding  which,  if  either,  is  in  the  right. 

But  when  we  look  at  the  two  nations  within  each  and  every 
nation,  the  nation  of  the  rich  and  the  nation  of  the  poor,  we 
never  can  have  any  doubt  as  to  which  is  the  oppressed  and 
which  the  oppressor,  as  io  which  does  the  work  and  as  to 
which  gets  the  reward. 

The  fact  that  both  rich  and  poor  live  within  the  same  na- 
tional borders  blinds  the  sense  of  justice  in  many.  If  all  the 
rich  Americans  lived  abroad,  as  do  William  Waldorf  Astor, 
W.  K.  Vanderbilt,  the  Countess  de  Castellane,  and  other  well- 
known  members  of  the  various  "American  colonies,"  no  doubt 
these  blind  ones  might  see  that  we  have  a  nation  of  poor  Amer- 
icans who  are  subject  to  a  nation  of  rich  Americans.  Sup- 
pose all  our  rich  did  emigrate,  although  of  course  still  keep- 
ing their  property  and  taking  their  rents  and  dividends,  I 
would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Roosevelt  if  he  would  then  say  we  Amer- 
icans who  remained  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  would  not  be 
cowards  if  we  did  not  end  the  "peace  of  injustice"  which 
would  let  a  situation  continue  by  which  we  who  remained 
at  home  did  all  the  work  while  those  who  lived  abroad  did  all 
the  playing. 

If  it  is  plain  that  we  would  be  cowards  in  this  case,  is  it 
not  equally  true  we  are  cowards  to-day  in  letting  continue  a 
"peace  of  craven  weakness,  this  peace  of  injustice"  when  we 
know  that  its  continuance  means  that  thousands  of  our  fel- 
low-countrymen must  work  and  get  nothing  that  other  thou- 
sands may  play  and  get  everything? 

This  is  the  "peace  of  injustice"  that  Socialists  are  warring 
against,  and  if  the  President  Is  sincere  in  his  striving  for 
the  goal  of  the  "peace  of  justice"  I  would  counsel  him  to  be- 
gin at  home  and  cast  his  lot  with  those  who  are  warring  for 
justice  to  the  Nation  of  the  Poor. 


Roosevelt's  Muck  Rake.  271 


ROOSEVELT'S  MUCK  RAKE 

1AM  in  agreement  with  the  President  on  the  muck-rake 
question  on  one  point  at  least,  namely,  that  the  question 
now  is  more  how  to  get  rid  of  the  muck  than  to  merely 
stir  it  up  and  leave  it  where  found  to  remain  a  stench  to  the 
nostrils.    Everyone  knows  by  this  time  that  the  muck  is  here. 

President  Eoosevelt  suggests  the  cause  of  the  muck  and 
likewise  the  remedy,  and  here  I  am  again  in  agreement  with 
him. 

He  says:  "Materially  we  must  strive  to  secure  a  broader 
economic  opportunity  for  all  men,  so  that  each  shall  have  a 
better  chance  to  show  the  stuff  of  which  he  is  made." 

That's  good  Socialistic  doctrine.  That's  pretty  nearly 
what  I  say:  "Let  all  men  have  an  equal  economic  oppor- 
tunity/' is  the  way  I  would  have  put  it. 

The  reason  of  "muck"  is  merely  because  some  men  have 
a  much  better  opportunity  than  other  men  and  can  buy  or 
bully  the  other  men  into  economic  submission.  For  instance, 
Vanderbilt  owns  a  railway — this  gives  him  superior  economic 
opportunity — with  it  he  extorts  "muck"  from  the  public  and 
with  the  "muck"  he  buys  our  legislators,  who  make  his  man 
Depew  a  Senator.  The  "muck-rake  man"  comes  along,  tells 
the  public  all  about  the  transaction,  stirs  up  the  muck,  and 
leaves  us  with  our  handkerchiefs  to  our  noses  to  find  out  how 
much  better  we  are  off  than  we  were  before  he  raked  the 
muck.  But  he  makes  us  sure  that  the  muck  is  there.  Now 
the  President  is  not  this  kind  of  a  muck-raker.  When  he 
rakes  muck  he  knows  where  he  is  going  to  dump  it.  He  is 
not  only  going  to  show  us  how  to  get  rid  of  the  muck,  but  is 
also  going  to  show  us  how  to  prevent  future  accumulation  of 
muck. 

President  Eoosevelt  clearly  sees  the  source  of  muck  to  be 
in  the  existence  of  large  fortunes ;  that  it  lies'  in  the  fact  that 
we  allow  our  railways  to  be  owned  by  a  Vanderbilt,  our  oil 
refineries  by  a  Rockefeller,  our  sugar  refineries  by  a  Have- 


272  Wilshire   Editorials. 

meyer,  etc.  Roosevelt  says  we  must  take  these  properties  away 
from  them,  not  now,  but  soon,  when  they  die. 

I  quote  again :  "We  must  have  a  tax  to  put  it  out  of  the 
power  of  the  owners  of  these  immense  fortunes  to  pass  on 
more  than  a  certain  amount  to  any  one  individual." 

It  seems  to  me  that  if  I  found  a  muck  heap  under  my  win- 
dow I  would  not  wait  until  somebody  died  before  I  would 
try  to  remove  it.  I  would  rake  off  the  muck  at  once.  Why 
endure  the  stench  a  moment  longer  than  necessary? 

If  Eoosevelt  sees  that  private  ownership — an  overgrown 
fortune — of  wealth  causes  the  muck,  then  he  has  no  more 
reason  to  ask  us  to  wait  for  the  owner  to  die  than  he  would 
have  to  ask  a  city  to  continue  drinking  water  known  to  be 
polluted  with  typhoid  germs  coming  from  the  drainage  of 
certain  houses  because  the  owner  of  the  houses  was  not  yet 
dead. 

It  may  be  true  the  greater  the  fortune  the  more  the  muck, 
yet  it  is  also  true  that  even  a  very  little  muck  is  disagreeable 
just  as  a  very  little  typhoid  fever  is  disagreeable.  No  one 
would  advise  letting  even  one  house  drain  into  and  pollute  a 
city's  water  supply.  No  one  would  allow  the  smallest  muck 
in  his  house  if  he  could  throw  it  out.  If  small  fortunes  give 
an  economic  opportunity  to  the  class  that  own  them  to  create 
even  a  little  muck  while  we  are  cleaning  house,  why  not  make 
it  thorough? 

Let  us  do  away  with  all  fortunes  and  all  muck,  and  do 
away  with  all  at  once.  Let  the  nation  own  the  fortunes,  both 
big  and  little,  the  little  railways  and  the  big  railways.  Let 
the  muck-rake  gather  them  all  in.    Let  us  have  a  clean  house. 


The  Boom  of  1906.  273 


THE  BOOM  OF  1906 

SOME  day,  and  a  not  very  distant  day  either,  people  will 
be  talking  of  how  crazy  investors  were  in  the  "boom  of 
1906."  We  are  right  now  in  the  midst  of  the  greatest 
period  of  insane  speculation  that  this  American  nation  of 
speculators  has  ever  experienced,  and  the  singular  part  of  it 
is  that  notwithstanding  all  we  should  have  learned  from  the 
past  about  the  ephemeral  character  of  such  booms  there  is 
hardly  a  warning  voice. 

The  big  financiers  and  bankers  who  should  be  the  men 
to  warn  us  of  an  impending  panic  are  the  very  ones  who  are 
pushing  along  the  boom  harder  than  any  other  class. 

What,  may  I  ask,  is  there  to  justify  all  this  construction 
of  new  houses,  new  stores,  factories,  and  railways  from  one 
end  of  the  country  to  the  other?  Certainly  not  the  increase 
of  population,  either  natural  or  from  immigration.  For  every 
American  new  born  and  for  every  foreign  immigrant  we  are 
to-day  building  five  times  the  house-room  commercially 
necessary. 

And  yet  only  two  years  ago  we  were  practically  facing  a 
commercial  depression,  a  condition  of  apparent  over-pro- 
duction. We  apparently  had  then  too  many  houses,  railways 
and  factories.  Does  anyone  mean  to  say  that  in  the  inter- 
vening two  years  population  has  so  increased  that  all  this 
tremendous  demand  for  goods  is  justified?    Of  course  not. 

If  two  years  ago  we  could  not  use  up  what  we  were  pro- 
ducing and  if  conditions  to-day  were  practically  the  same, 
then  how  is  it  that  now  we  do  not  seem  able  to  produce 
enough  for  consumption?    Why  such  a  change? 

It  all  begun  from  the  demand  upon  us  to  supply  the  waste 
of  the  Japanese-Russian  war.  From  that  demand  there  arose 
the  necessity  for  more  manufacturing  establishments,  while 
at  the  same  time  the  export  demand  for  our  farm  products  to 
feed  the  belligerents  caused  a  rise  in  the  price  of  farm 
products. 

This  demand  for  the  building  of  factories  meant  an  in- 
creased demand  for  labor,  and  the  demand  for  labor  meant 
higher  wages. 


274  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Both,  the  American  farmer  and  the  American  laborer  at 
one  and  the  same  time  have  had  more  money  to  spend,  and 
they  have  spent  it.  Goods  of  all  kinds  as  a  consequence  have 
been  in  demand.  More  shoes  wanted,  more  theatres  patron- 
ized, more  luxuries  bought.  It  has  meant  a  further  demand 
for  more  factories  to  still  further  facilitate  the  making  of 
foods. 

Each  factory  that  has  been  built  means  the  building  of 
still  other  factories  to  furnish  the  machinery  to  build  the  first 
factories. 

When  a  new  factory  is  built  it  creates  a  demand  for  lum- 
ber; this  may  mean  the  building  of  a  new  railway  into  a  new 
lumber  camp  to  haul  out  the  lumber,  the  building  of  the 
railway  may  mean  the  building  of  a  new  steel  rail  mill  to 
make  more  rail,  the  building  of  the  rail  mill  may  mean  the 
opening  of  a  new  iron-ore  mine  and  the  opening  of  the  new 
mine  may  mean  the  building  of  still  another  new  railway  to 
haul  the  ore,  of  new  steamships  to  carry  the  ore  on  the 
lakes,  of  new  piers  for  the  steamers.  New  steamers  need 
paint,  more  paint  means  more  lead  and  zinc  mines  must  be 
opened. 

And  again  these  new  railways,  mines,  etc.,  mean  still  more 
demand  for  labor,  still  higher  wages,  more  demand  for  farm 
products  and  higher  prices  all  along  the  line  for  all  com- 
modities. 

At  first  the  demand  caused  by  the  Japanese  war  was  met 
by  our  selling  goods  and  farm  products  at  the  normal  price 
prevailing  two  years  ago,  then,  as  the  demand  increased,  prices 
naturally  rose  and  traders  and  manufacturers  made  more 
and  more  profits.  Then,  as  prices  of  secondary  commodities 
needed  in  the  production  of  the  primary  products  also  rose  in 
price,  profits  fell  off  and  a  further  rise  in  the  price  of  primary 
goods  took  place  to  restore  profits  to  the  original  status.  For 
instance,  first  the  price  of  steel  advanced,  then  the  price  of 
iron  ore  went  up,  then  the  price  of  steel  again  advanced  on 
account  of  the  higher  price  of  ore. 

Labor  at  first  was  sold  in  the  form  of  wages  at  the  old 
level,  but  the  increased  demand,  and  especially  the  increased 
cost  of  living,  caused  wages  finally  to  rise  along  with  the 
general  rise  in  price  of  other  commodities,  although  wages 
have  not  risen  in  any  like  degree  with  the  increased  cost  of 


The  Boom  of  1906.  275 

living.  This  means  that  labor  is  really  not  consuming  any 
more  than  it  did  before  the  boom,  because  the  higher  wages 
it  now  gets  do  not  give  it  any  more  real  purchasing  power 
on  account  of  the  higher  prices.  The  largely  increased 
production  is  altogether  absorbed  by  the  increased  invest- 
ments of  the  capitalists  in  new  machinery  of  consumption, 
new  railways,  etc.  However,  as  shown,  the  starting  point  for 
all  this  boom  was  the  Japanese  war,  and  with  the  ending 
of  that  war  the  impulse  to  the  present  commercial  boom 
ended. 

We  are  now  running  on  the  start  which  was  given  us  by 
that  war,  and  unless  another  war  comes  along  to  give  us 
another  boost  our  boom  is  as  sure  to  soon  stop  short  as  is  a 
clock  sure  to  run  down  unless  some  one  re-winds  it.  There 
is  no  more  possibility  of  perpetual  motion  in  connection  with 
the  present  system  than  there  is  with  an  8-day  clock. 

The  question  to  be  presently  up  to  us  Americans  is  what 
to  do  when  our  industrial  clock  runs  down  and  stops. 

As  I  write  these  lines  the  first  of  July,  1906,  when  prices 
are  booming  as  never  before,  when  there  has  never  been  such 
building  activity,  when  the  banks  and  the  United  States 
treasury  were  never  so  flooded  with  money,  when  corpora- 
tion dividends  were  never  so  great,  when  there  is  an  un- 
precedented boom  in  real  estate  throughout  the  whole  Amer- 
ican continent,  for, Canada,  too,  is  with  the  United  States 
in  the  same  mad  race,  I  say  when  with  all  these  such  favor- 
able conditions  in  trade  and  without  a  cloud  upon  the  finan- 
cial sky,  it  seems  madness  to  predict  that  within  a  twelve- 
month all  will  be  reversed  and  the  country  will  be  in  a  state 
of  panic.  However,  I  give  the  present  boom  just  one  year 
to  reach  its  zenith  and  collapse. 

I  predict  also  that  when  the  collapse  does  come  it  will  have 
an  infinitely  greater  social  effect  than  any  other  previous 
crisis.  We  are  to  suddenly  plunge  from  the  present  condi- 
tion of  unbounded  prosperity  to  unprecedented   depression. 

Merchants  and  manufacturers  who  to-day  hardly  know 
what  to  do  with  their  enormous  profits  will  then  be  terrified 
to  know  how  to  avoid  bankruptcy. 

Workingmen  who  are  now  scorning  the  highest  wages  ever 
paid  in  the  history  of  the  country  will  then  be  cringing  at 
soup  kitchens,  glad  to  be  fed  by  charity  on  any  terms.    The 


276  Wilshire    Editorials. 

trade-unions  will  be  wrecks.  The  Socialist  Party  and  the 
Socialist  Press  alone  will  be  booming. 

Now,  we  have  had  previous  times  of  crisis  in  this  country 
when  times  have  been  as  hard  and  bad  as  I  have  just  pre- 
dicted as  to  shortly  again  to  come  upon  us,  but  in  those  times 
in  the  past  the  people  generally  and  labor  particularly  looked 
upon  a  crisis  as  an  unavoidable  natural  event.  Men  regarded 
hard  times  then  as  they  regard,  say,  yellow  fever  two  years 
ago  in  New  Orleans  before  the  infection  was  found  to  lie 
in  the  bite  of  a  mosquito.  A  panic  and  yellow  fever  were 
alike  a  visitation  of  God  for  which  there  was  little  or  nothing 
to  be  done  but  to  sit  down  and  wait  until  it  passed,  then 
get  up,  bury  the  dead  and  count  the  survivors  and  wait  for 
it  to  again  appear. 

But  to-day,  when  yellow  fever  comes  to  New  Orleans,  they 
don't  sit  down  and  wail  and  do  nothing,  nor  do  they  take  a 
hundred  different  quack  medicines, — they  get  busy,  they  get 
rid  of  the  mosquito  breeding  pools,  they  screen  the  cisterns 
where  mosquitos  breed,  they  screen  their  bedrooms  to  protect 
themselves  from  mosquitos. 

It  is  now  recognized  that  without  the  mosquitos  yellow 
fever  cannot  be  conveyed  from  person  to  person.  The  mos- 
quito bites  a  person  infected  with  fever,  then  bites  a  well 
person  and  thus  is  the  disease  conveyed.  It  took  quite  a  little 
time  to  educate  the  people  of  New  Orleans  about  the  danger 
of  the  mosquito,  and  the  mosquito  theory  met  with  all  kinds 
of  ridicule,  but  the  last  epidemic  convinced  all  classes  as  to 
the  soundness  of  the  theory. 

The  Fear  of  Death  is  a  great  Schoolmaster. 

It  will  be  the  fear  of  death  which  will  teach  the  American 
people  in  our  next  economic  crisis  the  correct  scientific  remedy 
to  avoid  starvation. 

We  will  at  last  see  that  the  Mosquitos  which  sap  our 
strength  and  poison  our  blood  are  the  Capitalists.  We  will 
finally  see  that  as  long  as  we  suffer  the  capitalist  mosquito 
to  puncture  our  veins  and  drain  our  blood  we  must  necessarily 
be  poverty-stricken.  We  will  see  that  to  get  rid  of  the  capi- 
talist mosquito  is  impossible  as  long  as  we  allow  the  pools 
and  gutters  of  competition  and  private  ownership  of  capital 
to  remain.  We  will  set  to  work  and  drain  our  pools  as  did 
the  people  of  New  Orleans.     We  will  turn  to  and  fill  up  the 


The  Boom  of  1906.  277 

capitalist  swamps  which  breed  our  capitalist  mosquitos.  We 
will  open  up  the  mighty  river  of  Socialism,  a  great  clear 
running  stream,  breeding  no  capitalist  mosquitos,  which  will 
carry  man  upon  its  broad  bosom  to  a  land  of  peace  and  plenty 
for  all. 

All  this  literature  of  exposure  which  is  now  going  on,  all 
the  muck-raking,  the  beef-trust  business,  the  Life  Insurance 
frauds,  the  railway  rebating,  all,  all  is  slowly  educating  the 
public  to  the  nature  of  our  present  system.  We  no  longer 
venerate  our  capitalist  leaders  any  more  than  do  the  Eussians 
of  to-day  venerate  the  Tsar.  We  are  merely  patiently  waiting 
and  looking  for  an  opportunity  to  get  rid  of  them.  Just  now 
we  are  like  a  man  carrying  a  pack  through  the  Canadian 
woods  during  the  black-fly  season.  He  is  bitten  to  distraction 
by  the  flies,  but  he  cannot  stop  to  fight  them  on  account  of 
the  pack.  But  because  he  doesn't  brush  them  off  doesn't 
mean  he  doesn't  want  to  brush  them  off.  He  is  merely  biding 
his  time.  Just  now  he  is  too  busy.  That  is  just  our  position. 
We  are  too  busy  making  money  and  drawing  wages  to  attend 
to  our  capitalist  mosquitos.  But  we  know  they  are  biting 
us  all  right.  And  we  know  they  are  of  no  more  benefit  to 
us  than  are  the  black  flies  of  benefit  to  the  man  carrying  the 
pack.  We  know  they  are  annoying  pests,  but  we  don't  know 
yet  that  they  are  as  deadly  as  the  yellow  fever  mosquitos. 
New  Orleans  never  liked  the  mosquito,  but  it  never  really 
fought  them  until  it  found  them  not  only  annoying  but 
deadly. 

Let  the  next  crisis  come,  and  my  prediction  is  that  it  will 
be  here  before  August,  1907,  unless  another  great  war  breaks 
out,  and  we  will  see  the  American  people  do  some  much 
more  lively  mosquito  hunting  than  any  one  to-day  would 
think  possible. 

We  are  to-day  producing  wealth  in  unprecedented  quantity, 
no  one  can  deny  that  everyone  could  be  provided  for  in  the 
most  generous  manner  with  our  present  labor  power  and 
machinery.  And  notwithstanding  that  we  are  producing  so 
much  food  and  clothing  for  actual  day-to-day  consumption 
we  are  at  the  same  time  diverting  an  enormous  quantity  of 
our  labor  force  to  the  building  of  more  machinery  for  use 
in  the  future.  We  are  building  a  two  hundred  million  dollar 
canal  at  Panama,  a  new  hundred  million  dollar  steel  plant 


278  Wilshire   Editorials. 

at  Gary,  Indiana,  half  a  dozen  railway  enterprises  are  going 
on  and  each  costs  over  a  hundred  million  dollars.  Millions 
and  millions  are  going  into  new  houses  and  factories.  If  one- 
quarter  of  the  millions  we  are  now  putting  into  new  machinery 
were  devoted  to  the  making  of  more  goods  for  immediate  con- 
sumption by  the  working  class,  it  is  difficult  to  compute  how 
great  would  be  the  ensuing  good  and  comfort  to  the  recipients. 

In  addition  to  these  immense  "savings"  being  made,  our 
millionaires  are  wasting  millions  and  millions  on  luxuries.  No 
one  can  say  that  we  are  not  producing  enough  and  more  than 
enough  for  all.  Unquestionably  we  have  right  now  both  labor 
and  capital  at  hand  sufficient  to  give  us  all  a  good  living. 

Suppose  in  a  year  from  to-day  there  is  a  crisis,  and  instead 
of  labor  and  capital  being  well  employed,  both  are  idle.  Sup- 
pose, instead  of  the  greater  part  of  the  working  class  being 
comparatively  well  clothed  and  well  fed,  the  greater  part  of 
them  are  hungry  and  out  of  work. 

Does  any  one  think  that  the  workers  will  have  memories 
so  short  as  not  to  be  able  to  look  back  one  short  year  and 
contrast  their  position  then  and  now?  Does  any  one  think 
that  the  working  class  in  their  present  frame  of  mind  in 
regard  to  the  capitalist  class  are  going  to  submit  to  starva- 
tion for  any  considerable  time  and  be  calmed  by  the  explana- 
tion that  the  whole  trouble  is  "overproduction"?  It  may 
be  asked,  "What  are  they  going  to  do  about  it?"  I  can 
answer  right  now  what  they  are  going  to  do  about  it.  They 
are  going  to  demand  Socialism,  and  they  are  going  to  insist 
on  their  demand,  too.  It  may  be  said  that  they  cannot  do 
anything  without  organization.  To  this  I  reply,  the  germ 
of  the  future  organization  which  is  to  free  the  workers  is 
already  at  hand,  namely,  the  Socialist  Party.  It  is  true  that 
to-day  it  is  of  comparatively  insignificant  size  and  strength. 
But  it  is  merely  so  because  conditions  have  been  unfavorable 
to  its  growth.  Too  much  prosperity.  It  has  the  right  frame- 
work, it  has  the  right  principles,  it  is  headed  in  the  right 
direction.  Let  the  winds  of  an  economic  crisis  blow  and  you 
will  be  astonished  to  see  how  the  driftwood  in  the  labor  stream 
will  come  together  in  a  compact  mass  to  form  a  great  raft 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Socialist  Party  to  ferry  us  across 
the  Eiver  Styx  of  Capitalism  to  the  Elysian  Fields  of 
Socialism. 


Herbert  Spencer.  27 d 


HERBERT  SPENCER 

WE  are  all  too  apt  to  think  that  when  a  man  does  not 
agTee  with  us  that  there  are  reasons  other  than  pure 
which  cause  the  difference  of  opinion,  and  that  this 
is  a  fault  to  which  we  Socialists  are  prone  is  readily  admitted. 

But  we  have  more  cause  than  most  people.  It  is  not  to 
the  interest  of  a  man  of  property  or  position  to  agree  with  us, 
and  since  the  economic  basis  of  Socialism  is  so  plain  and 
simple  we  have  a  good  reason  to  question  either  the  brains 
or  the  honesty  of  a  man  who  disagrees  with  us.  Suppose 
you  claim  the  right  and  title  to  four  apples,  and  four  only. 
Now  suppose  that  by  actual  count  I  show  you  that  you  really 
possess  five  apples.  I  then  say  you  have  an  apple  to  which 
you  have  no  right.  Then  if  you  say  you  fail  to  understand 
either  my  mathematics  or  my  ethics  I  have  a  right  to  question 
your  sanity,  or  if  not  your  sanity  your  honesty. 

Socialism  to  a  Socialist  is  like  unto  this  problem  of  the 
four  apples  in  its  simplicity,  and  it  is  always  hard  for  us  to 
understand  that  it  is  not  all  just  as  plain  to  others  as  it  is 
to  us. 

Now  Herbert  Spencer  was  always  a  conundrum  to  us 
Socialists.  Here  was  a  man,  one  of  the  foremost  thinkers  of 
the  day,  and  a  man  who  bowed  the  knee  to  neither  priest  nor 
millionaire  nor  king.  A  man  who  preceded  Darwin  in  his 
adherence  to  the  theory  of  evolution.  A  man  who  at  one 
time  was  heading  straight  for  Socialism.  He  was  apparently 
logically  bound  to  apply  his  theory  of  social  evolution  to  the 
social  organization  of  man  as  well  as  to  his  individual  or- 
ganization. If  man  was  developing,  then  so  was  society.  He 
had  said  that  the  "cardinal  trait  in  all  advancing  organiza- 
tions is  the  development  of  the  regulative  apparatus,"  but 
when  the  trust  appeared  as  the  great  regulator  of  industry, 
and  a  fulfilment  of  his  prophecy,  he  refused  to  recognize  it 
as  a  fulfilment,  but  persisted  in  looking  at  it  through  the 
blind  and  prejudiced  eyes  of  an  American  politician.     He 


280  Wilshire   Editorials. 

called  the  trust  an  unnatural  phenomenon  which  should  be 
suppressed  by  the  police  powers  of  the  State.  Then  when 
some  fifty  years  ago  he  went  so  far  as  to  demand  the  nation- 
alization of  land  as  a  necessary  concomitant  of  his  theories 
of  exact  and  equal  justice,  he  later  on  recanted  his  demand, 
lamely  excusing  himself  by  saying  that  it  was  "simpler"  to 
leave  the  existing  owners  in  possession  than  to  take  the 
trouble  of  expropriating  them. 

Of  course,  in  a  way,  he  was  right.  That  is,  if  we  are  to 
leave  private  capital  except  land  in  the  hands  of  private 
owners  and  continue  with  our  present  competitive  system, 
then  it's  hardly  worth  while  to  upset  things  for  the  little 
good  that  land  nationalization  would  do.  But  by  leaving 
things  as  they  are  we  give  up  all  our  ideas  of  exact  justice, 
and  for  a  man  holding  the  high  ethical  standard  held  by 
Herbert  Spencer  his  recantation  was  incongruous  and  in- 
explicable. 

The  man  was  a  great  disappointment;  but  this  is  not  say- 
.-.  ing  that  he  has  not  performed  a  great  and  monumental  work 
for  humanity.  He  made  many  good  bricks,  and  even  if  they 
do  not  go  to  construct  the  building  he  designed,  they  have 
come  into  good  use  constructing  our  Socialist  house  of  the 
future. 


How  to  be  Happy.  281 


HOW  TO  BE  HAPPY 

THE  rich  are  above  the  law,  and  no  better  illustration 
could  be  had  than  the  action  of  the  directors  of  the 
corporation  which  owned  the  steamer  General  Slocum, 
which  recently  burnt  up,  with  the  loss  of  a  thousand  lives. 
The  evidence  showed  such  criminal  negligence  to  provide  life 
preservers  and  proper  fire  apparatus  that  the  directors  have 
been  indicted  for  manslaughter.  After  the  indictment  it 
was  common  talk  that  nothing  would  come  of  it  all,  and 
that  the  directors  themselves  are  unafraid  can  be  seen  from 
the  way  they  are  acting  regarding  another  steamboat  they 
own,  the  Grand  Republic,  a  sister  ship  to  the  General  Slocum. 
The  Grand  Republic  is  used  exclusively  for  excursions  and 
has  a  legal  carrying  capacity  of  3,700  passengers.  Some  weeks 
previous  to  the  Slocum  disaster  I  myself  was  a  passenger 
upon  the  Grand  Republic  on  an  excursion  up  the  Hudson 
River.  There  were  at  least  2,000  more  on  board  than  the 
law  allowed,  and  there  was  not  the  least  attempt  even  to 
prevent  still  more  crowding  upon  her.  The  only  reason 
there  were  no  more  on  board  was  that  no  more  tickets  were 
in  demand.  It  was  so  crowded  that  when  she  made  her  stop 
at  125th  street — she  started  from  *Twenty-third  street — a 
great  many  more  got  off  there  than  got  on,  as  many  had  an 
opportunity  to  realize  by  that  time  that  the  crowd  was  too 
great  for  comfort,  quite  apart  from  considering  the  danger 
of  it,  and  they  preferred  to  forfeit  their  fares  rather  than 
continue  the  trip.  If  a  fire  had  occurred  that  day,  even  if 
there  had  been  plenty  of  good  life  preservers,  there  would 
certainly  have  been  an  immense  loss  of  life,  for  the  boat  was 
so  overcrowded  that  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  have 
gotten  near  a  preserver.  This  kind  of  overcrowding  is  the 
rule  with  excursion  boats,  not  only  about  New  York,  but 
about  every  other  American  city.  There  is  no  country  in  the 
world  where  profits  are  put  so  far  ahead  of  human  life  as  in 
our  dear  land  of  Colorado  Bull  Pen  Liberty. 


282  Wilshire   Editorials. 

However,  to  continue  my  story.  After  the  burning  of  the 
Slocum  there  was  a  demand  for  general  reinspection  of  all  ex- 
cursion steamers  about  New  York  harbor.  I  am  not  very  inno- 
cent, but  I  admit  that  I  thought  to  myself  that  the 
lesson  of  the  Slocum  would  certainly  warn  the  directors  to  get 
the  Grand  Kepublic  in  ship-shape  to  pass  the  reinspection, 
sure  to  come  shortly.  I  did  think  a  man  under  indictment 
for  manslaughter  would  be  careful  to  avoid  another  indict- 
ment. Not  at  all.  Did  the  directors  turn  to  and  fix  up  the 
Grand  Eepublic  after  the  burning  of  the  Slocum?  Not  only 
did  they  fail  to  prepare  her  for  reinspection,  but  they 
actually  contested  the  right  of  the  government  to  reinspect ! 
However,  the  reinspection  was  made  and  what  the  same  in- 
spector two  months  ago  pronounced  safe  he  now  pronounces 
unsafe.  The  life  preservers  were  found  absolutely  rotten  and 
incapable  of  sustaining  even  twenty-four  pounds  of  lead,  and 
the  fire  hose  was  as  rotten  as  the  life  preservers.  As  for  a 
fire  drill,  the  crew  never  had  heard  of  such  a  thing.  Now  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  this  criminal  negligence  is 
found  on  the  Grand  Republic  a  full  month  or  more  after  her 
owners  had  been  indicted  for  criminal  negligence  regarding 
the  Slocum.  If  this  conduct  does  not  show  a  contempt  for 
the  power  of  the  law  when  it  comes  to  the  protection  of  the 
weak  from  the  strong,  then  there  has  never  been  an  example 
of  it. 

Money  has  now  become  such  a  power  in  this  country, 
it  has  such  an  absolute  dominance  over  our  courts,  that  it  is 
almost  hopeless  to  look  for  any  good  results  from  the  passage 
of  laws  designed  to  protect  man  as  against  the  money-bag.  We 
have  seen  how  the  trade  unions  are  being  crippled  by  one 
decision  after  the  other.  We  have  seen  how  in  Colorado  the 
referendum  is  disregarded  by  the  corporations  and  the  con- 
situation  scoffed  at.  The  nation  may  not  be  ruled  by  Money, 
but  it  is  certainly  ruled  by  the  Men  who  rule  Money.  The 
only  men  who  can  rule  money  are  those  who  own  money. 
Ergo,  if  the  Nation  would  rule  money,  it  must  own  money. 
What  is  money?  When  we  say  Rockefeller  is  worth  lots  of 
money  what  do  we  mean?  Do  we  mean  he  has  lots  of  dollar 
bills  in  his  vest  pocket?  Of  course  not.  Rockefeller  might 
be  worth  a  billion  dollars  of  money  and  yet  not  have 
ten   dollars   in  bank.     Let   him   own  the   Trusts   and  the 


How  To  Be  Happy.  283 

Eailways  and  he  can  own  a  billion  of  money  when- 
ever he  will.  The  Trusts  command  money  and  money  com- 
mands the  Nation.  When  we  use  the  word  money  we  use  it 
metaphorically.  We  don't  mean  actual  dollars  and  cents,  but 
we  mean  railways  and  other  forms  of  capital,  the  ownership 
of  which  gives  the  owner  the  power  of  extracting  the  dollars 
from  the  people.  Therefore,  when  I  say,  Let  the  Nation  Own 
the  Money,  I  do  not  mean  to  cry,  Let  the  Nation  Own  the 
Gold  Dollars  and  the  Greenbacks,  I  mean,  Let  the  Nation 
Own  the  Trusts.  Once  owning  the  Trusts,  the  Nation  will 
have  no  more  difficulty  commanding  money  than  has  Mr. 
Kockefeller  commanding  it.  If  we  do  not  wish  any  more 
burning  up  of  the  people  in  Iroquois  theatres  or  Slocum 
steamboats,  then  let  us  do  away  with  the  profit  system  which 
causes  men  to  burn  up  their  fellow-men  for  the  sake  of  a  few 
half-dollars.  If  we  do  not  wish  to  shorten  the  lives  of  millions 
of  our  fellow-men  who  are  wearing  out  their  lives  working 
unnecessarily  long  hours  and  in  unnecessarily  unhealthy  fac- 
tories, then  let  us  be  the  owners  of  those  factories  ourselves 
and  regulate  our  hours  and  the  conditions  of  our  labor.  In- 
stead of  allowing  a  few  soulless  corporations  to  sweat  and 
murder  us  on  the  plan  of  making  the  most  profit  without 
regard  to  the  loss  of  life,  let  us  be  our  own  masters. 

If  we  wish  this  Earth  to  be  our  Paradise  for  men,  then  Let 
the  Nation  Own  the  Trusts.  This  sounds  hifalutin.  Is  it  ?  What 
is  Paradise  but  a  place  where  you  do  what  you  like?  And 
what  you  like  is  obedience  to  God.  Obedience  to  God  has  an 
ugly  sound  for  most  of  us.  It  usually  means  doing  something 
you  do  not  wish  to  do,  in  order  that  someone  else  may  have 
the  fruit  of  your  work.  Be  unhappy  yourself  that  someone 
else  may  be  happy.  But  this  is  not  obedience  to  God.  God's 
law  is  simply  the  law  that  impels  us  all  to  do  what  is  best 
for  the  social  organism,  not  for  our  own  selves,  not  for  our 
neighbors,  but  for  the  general  good.  When  we  do  what  is 
best  for  all,  we  are  doing  what  is  best  for  ourselves  and  what 
renders  us  the  most  happy.  However,  we  cannot  under  pres- 
ent conditions  either  do  what  is  best  for  ourselves,  nor  for 
our  neighbors,  nor  for  humanity.  Therefore  we  are  un- 
happy and  this  world  is  not  Paradise.  We  simply  cannot  be 
good  as  things  are  to-day,  and  unless  we  are  good  we  cannot 
be  happy.    Therefore  no  one  is  happy.    If  we  would  be  good 


284  Wilshire   Editorials. 

we  must  have  the  conditions  which  allow  of  Goodness.  The 
primary  condition  is  liberty  for  each  individual  to  be  able  to 
work  to  the  best  advantage  for  humanity  as  a  whole,  for  by 
so  doing  he  is  working  the  best  for  himself.  To  do  this  we 
must  control  the  earth  and  manage  it  for  ourselves.  Some- 
one else  cannot  do  this  for  us  any  more  than  someone  else 
can  be  good  and  happy  for  us.  To  control  and  manage  the 
earth  we  must  own  it.  The  first  step  toward  ownership  will 
come  only  when  we  cry,  "Let  the  Nation  Own  the  Trusts." 


Mr.  Gompers  and  His  Little  Plan.  285 


MR.  GOMPERS  AND  HIS  LITTLE  PLAN 

THE  American  Federation  of  Labor,  by  a  vote  of  over 
five  to   one,  has  decided  that  it  doesn't  want  any 
close  connection  between  the  political  and  the  eco- 
nomic movements  of  the  working  class. 

Mr.  Gompers,  the  president  of  the  Federation,  took  occa- 
sion during  the  debate  on  the  subject  to  declare  to  the  So- 
cialists: "Economically  you  are  unsound,  socially  you 
are  wrong  and  industrially  you  are  an  impossibility." 
Such  remarks  from  Mr.  Gompers  naturally  aroused  more 
or  less  annoyance  among  the  Socialist  delegates  at  the 
convention,  and  among  the  Socialists  generally  throughout 
the  country.  But  what  else  could  we  anticipate?  Mr. 
Gompers  spoke  from  his  own  particular  trade-union  stand- 
point. The  trade-union  movement  is  essentially  a  move- 
ment to  raise  wages.  That  this  is  a  difficult  task  goes  with- 
out saying.  It  is  difficult  enough  when  the  whole  attention 
of  organized  labor  is  devoted  to  this  one  object,  and  dividing 
the  attention  certainly  would  not  make  the  task  any  lighter. 
This  is  essentially  the  position  taken  by  Mr.  Gompers  and 
Mr.  Mitchell  and  the  rest  of  the  trades  unionists  pure  and 
simple,  and  there  is  more  or  less  logic  in  it.  Neither  Mr. 
Gompers  nor  Mr.  Mitchell  understands  the  present  economic 
situation  and  its  natural  evolution.  They  look  upon  So- 
cialism as  if  it  were  a  scheme  of  industrial  government  to 
be  imposed  upon  us  by  the  conscious  action  of  the  working 
class,  along  the  line  of  a  predetermined  plan.  That  it  is 
coming  about  as  a  natural  and  inevitable  result  of  industrial 
and  social  evolution  never  occurs  to  them. 

The  Socialist  Party  at  the  last  election  cast  a  very  small 
percentage  of  the  general  vote.  If  Gompers  should  advocate 
that  trades  unionists  attach  themselves  to  this  small  party, 
he  knows  enough  to  know  that  his  advocacy  would  influence 
only  a  small  percentage  of  the  trades  unionists,  and  that  lit- 
tle good  could  accrue  to  the  Socialist  movement,  and  much 
harm  to  the  trades  union  movement.     He  also  knows  that 


286  Wilshire  Editorials. 

such  advocacy  would  cost  him  his  office.  Many  of  the  trades 
unionists  are  good  Democrats  or  good  Republicans,  as  the 
case  may  be,  and  have  as  much  affiliation  for  their  respect- 
ive parties  as  a  Methodist  has  for  his  church.  Some  would 
rather  abandon  their  trades  union  than  to  abandon  their 
party.  To  ask  a  Republican  trades  unionist  to  attach  him- 
self to  the  Socialist  Party  would  be  almost  like  asking  a 
Methodist  to  become  a  Roman  Catholic.  It  takes  a  long 
process  of  education  to  make  a  Socialist.  This  is  particularly 
true  when  the  man  has  been  doing  as  well  as  the  average 
trades  unionist  has  been  doing  for  the  last  four  or  five  years. 
He  is  quite  satisfied  with  the  existing  system  which  has 
given  him  a  good  job  for  the  last  four  years.  Of  course,  he 
asks  for  more,  but  often  in  his  inmost  heart,  he  thinks  he 
is  getting  all  that  is  his  due,  and  he  is  simply  asking  for  more 
because  he  thinks  he  can  get  it. 

The  knowledge  that  he  produces  a  great  deal  more  than 
the  very  best  paid  trades  unionist  gets,  and  the  conviction 
that  he  should  get  the  whole  of  his  product,  is  not  as  yet 
widely  prevalent  among  the  trades  unionists.  However, 
President  Gompers  himself  admitted  that  conditions  for  the 
next  year  are  not  going  to  be  analogous  to  those  of  the  past 
four  years.  He  knows  that  we  are  approaching  a  period 
of  great  depression;  and  he  has  warned  the  capitalists  that 
they  ought  not  to  meet  this  by  reducing  wages.  He  has 
adopted  the  Socialist  argument,  that  inasmuch  as  the  work- 
ing class  constitutes  the  great  bulk  of  consumers,  any  re- 
duction in  wages  will  reduce  the  demand  for  commodities 
to  just  the  extent  of  the  reduction;  and  render  the  problem 
of  over-production  still  more  insoluble. 

The  idea  of  Gompers  appealing  to  the  capitalists  to  keep 
up  wages  in  a  time  of  falling  prices  and  over-production  is  a 
more  palpably  Utopian  scheme  than  anything  the  Socialists 
ever  dreamed  of  presenting.  For  instance,  here  are,  say,  the 
cotton  mills  encountering  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  cotton 
cloth.  They  have  two  alternatives,  either  to  shut  down  the 
mills  altogether  or  to  reduce  wages,  so  as  to  decrease  the 
fcost  of  the  cloth,  and  enable  them  to  make  and  sell  their 
product  without  loss. 

According  to  Gompers'  plan  they  would  go  ahead  paying 
the  same  wages  as  at  present,  in  order  to  give  the  mill-work- 


Mr.  Gompers  and  his  Little  Plan.  287 

ers  an  opportunity  of  buying  more  cloth  than  they  could  if 
wages  were  reduced.  If  the  cotton  mill  owners  were  the 
only  employers  of  labor  in  the  world,  this  plan  might  work 
well  enough;  but  inasmuch  as  they  are  engaged  in  com- 
petition with  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  as  the  laborers 
spend  but  a  very  small  proportion  of  their  wages  in  buying 
cotton  cloth,  and  the  far  greater  proportion  in  buying  bread 
and  meat  and  sugar  and  paying  rent,  it  can  be  seen  that  the 
cotton  mill  owners  personally  would  get  a  very  small  direct 
benefit  through  keeping  up  wages  in  the  cotton  mills.  It  is 
self-evident  that  the  Gompers'  plan  is  an  impossibility. 
With  the  period  of  depression  and  falling  prices  that  we  are 
now  entering  upon  in  the  United  States,  the  capitalists  must 
either  reduce  wages  or  shut  down  the  factories.  The  reduc- 
tion of  wages  would  be  at  best  only  a  temporary  expedient, 
and  we  would  finally  have  to  shut  down  the  factories  any- 
way. 

Gompers  is  right  in  saying  that  the  working  class  con- 
stitutes the  bulk  of  the  consumers,  and  that  cutting  down 
their  wages  will  hasten  the  coming  of  the  unemployed  prob- 
lem; but  in  the  meantime  cutting  down  the  wages  does  give 
the  capitalist  a  chance  to  breathe  a  little  longer,  and  the 
meantime  is  very  important. 

"When  the  Federation  of  Labor  meets  next  year  conditions 
are  going  to  be  very  different  from  what  they  are  at  this 
meeting.  There  will  be  no  mutual  congratulations  next 
year  about  the  prosperity  of  trades  unionism,  increase  of 
wages  and  winning  of  strikes.  On  the  contrary  it  will  be  a 
very  mournful  tale  of  the  breaking  up  of  the  trades  unions, 
a  large  decrease  in  the  membership  of  the  Federation,  a  great 
reduction  of  wages  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  members 
out  of  employment.  Gompers'  absurd  plan  of  having  the 
capitalists  pay  high  wages  during  periods  of  depression  will 
not  even  be  mentioned. 

The  question  as  to  whether  Socialism  is  an  industrial  im- 
possibility, as  Mr.  Gompers  has  proclaimed,  will  probably  be 
the  particular  subject  of  discussion.  Certainly  the  existing 
system  of  competition  will  have  proved  itself  to  be  an  im- 
possibility and  will  be  so  realized  by  a  great  many  out-of- 
work  trades  unionists  next  year.  When  a  man  is  out  of  em- 
ployment he  is  very  apt  to  have  his  ideas  shaken  as  to  the 


288  Wilshire   Editorials. 

eternal  goodness  of  the  existing  system,  even  if  he  does  adore 
Mr.  Gompers. 

With  competition  found  to  be  impossible  and  Socialism 
declared  by  Gompers  to  be  impractical,  the  trades  unionist 
will  be  indeed  in  a  perplexed  state  of  mind.  Whatever  way 
he  may  look  he  will  see  no  land  in  sight.  However,  with 
the  collapse  of  the  present  wage  system,  it  is  probable  that 
the  deference  he  now  shows  to  Mr.  Gompers'  view  of  So- 
cialism may  be  considerably  modified. 

So  long  as  we  can  get  along  at  all  with  the  present  sys- 
tem, no  change  will  be  made.  Man,  as  a  rule,  is  loath  to  do 
anything  until  he  has  to  do  it,  and  naturally  when  it  comes  to 
making  such  a  vast  change  as  that  from  one  social  system 
to  another,  he  is  not  likely  to  do  it  until  it  has  become  a 
vital  necessity.  And  this  is  the  point,  it  seems  to  me,  which 
is  likely  to  be  reached  before  a  great  many  years. 

Trades  unions  are  only  of  benefit  to  the  laborer  when  there 
is  a  demand  for  labor,  just  as  the  Trust  is  only  of  benefit  to 
the  capitalist  when  there  is  a  demand  for  capital.  The  trades 
union  prevents  competition  among  laborers  cutting  the  price 
of  labor  below  the  point  of  subsistence.  The  Trust  prevents 
capitalists  selling  their  capital  below  cost.  In  both  cases 
the  premise  is  that  there  is  a  demand.  If  there  is  no  de- 
mand for  labor,  the  trades  union  naturally  cannot  protect 
the  laborer.  When  there  is  no  demand  for  capital  for  the 
production  of  commodities  because  of  there  being  no  sale 
for  them,  there  is  no  reason  why  there  should  be  any  Trust 
among  capitalists  to  prevent  too  much  capital  going  into 
that  industry. 

The  crisis  just  now  impending  over  the  United  States  can- 
not be  obviated  by  action  of  either  the  trades  unions  or  the 
Trusts.  They  are  equally  helpless  before  the  situation  which 
arises  from  non-demand  for  their  respective  commodities. 

Some  people  have  argued  that  the  Trusts,  by  regulating 
the  production  of  commodities,  can  institute  some  sort  of 
industrial  feudalism  which  will  result  in  the  permanence  of 
the  existing  competitive  system. 

There  is  no  doubt  at  all  that  the  existing  Trusts,  by  virtue 
of  their  monopoly,  have  been  able  to  make  much  greater 
profits  than  they  would  have  made  under  competition,  and 
to  a  certain  very  limited  extent  they  have  divided  these 


Mr.  Gompers  and  his  Little  Plan.  289 

profits  among  their  respective  employees  by  the  payment  of 
somewhat  higher  wages.  This  sop,  though  small,  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  Federation's  declaration  against  anti- 
Trust  legislation,  alleging  that  such  legislation  would  be 
turned  against  the  trades  unions  rather  than  against  the 
capitalists.  No  doubt  there  is  some  truth  in  this  allegation; 
but  it  is  also  true  that  the  trades  unions  themselves  feel 
somewhat  kindly  toward  the  Trust  form  of  industry  which 
has  enabled  them  to  get  higher  wages  than  might  possibly 
have  fallen  to  them  otherwise.  The  employer  when  he  re- 
duces wages  invariably  excuses  himself  to  his  workmen  by 
declaring  that  he  is  reluctantly  forced  to  it  by  the  lowering  of 
prices.  The  Trust,  by  being  the  only  employer  of  labor, 
might  oppress  labor,  but  so  far  it  has  not  exercised  its  power 
that  way.  The  trades  unionists  are  apparently  grateful  to 
the  Trusts  for  the  favor  they  have  received,  and  the  adoption 
of  the  resolutions  by  the  Federation  of  Labor  is  more  or  les3 
tangible  evidence  of  this  gratitude. 

The  recent  disclosures  ventilated  in  McClure's  Magazine 
about  the  combination  of  the  trades  unionists  and  the  trust 
of  the  coal  dealers  in  Chicago,  by  which  the  coal  dealers 
raised  the  price  of  coal,  and  then,  through  their  tremendous 
profits,  were  enabled  to  pay  higher  prices  for  union  labor,  is 
still  fresh  in  our  memories,  and  is  a  concrete  example  of  what 
Mr.  Gompers  is  grateful  for. 

With  a  constantly  growing  demand  for  commodities  the 
Trust  could  hold  a  monopoly  price  upon  sales,  and  if  they 
were  entrenched  still  further  in  their  monopoly  by  an  alliance 
with  the  trades  unions,  and  in  return  for  this  alliance  gave 
higher  wages,  then,  indeed,  we  would  be  in  danger  of  the 
so-called  "industrial  feudalism."  And  it  is  not  owing  to  the 
reluctance  of  the  capitalists  or  of  the  trades  unionists  that 
such  a  system  of  industry  may  not  some  day  be  imposed  upon 
us.  That  there  is  no  danger  of  such  a  fate  befalling  us  is 
owing  to  the  fact  that  such  a  state  of  affairs  is  an  economic 
impossibility.  Of  this  the  existing  industrial  situation  alone 
is  sufficient  evidence. 

Here  we  have  the  Steel  Trust  finding  the  market  flooded 
with  steel  products,  because  the  capitalists  who  have  been 
building  steel  buildings  and  laying  steel  rail  find  that  there 
is  no  longer  any  chance  of  profitable  extension  of  their  busi- 


290  Wilshire   Editorials. 

ness.  Therefore  they  don't  buy  steel;  therefore  the  steel 
mills  don't  make  steel;  therefore  the  steel  trust 'cannot  em- 
ploy men.  So  that  even  if  the  steel  trust  were  willing  to 
pay  the  highest-asked  wages,  it  could  not  do  so,  simply  be- 
cause it  cannot  pay  even  the  lowest  wages,  because  it  cannot 
sell  its  product.  Hence  any  combination  between  the  steel 
trust  and  its  employees  must  finally  fall  to  the  ground  as 
soon  as  the  market  for  steel  collapses;  and  such  is  the  case 
to-day. 

We  could  only  have  an  industrial  feudalism  by  the  total 
elimination  of  competition  between  the  capitalists,,  as  well  as 
between  the  laborers,  and  not  only  through  our  own  nation, 
but  throughout  the  whole  world. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  there  is  one  great  class  of 
competitors  whom  no  union  can  ever  save  from  competition, 
and  that  is  the  farmers.  The  farmer  is  statistically  shown  to 
get  less  return  from  his  farm  than  the  average  laborer  gets 
from  his  labor.  The  farmer  is  really  engaged  in  selling  his 
labor,  just  as  much  as  the  laborer  is;  he  merely  doesn't  sell 
it  directly  to  the  capitalist  as  does  the  laborer.  The  wheat 
farmers  of  the  world  are  engaged  in  competition,  one  against 
the  other,  in  the  sale  of  their  wheat;  Liverpool  fixing  the 
world  price  of  wheat.  The  price  is  determined  by  the 
cost  of  production  at  the  margin  of  cultivation.  The 
great  majority  of  farmers  are  working  at  approximately  this 
margin  of  cultivation.  They  are,  hence,  compelled  to  work 
for  a  mere  subsistence  wage  like  the  city  laborers.  The  mere 
fact  that  the  farmer  gets  paid  for  his  wheat  instead  of  for  his 
labor  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  he  is  really  paid  a  com- 
petitive wage,  just  as  much  as  is  the  day  laborer.  Now,  with 
the  farming  class  so  ground  down  to  the  verge  of  mere  sub- 
sistence through  competition  in  the  sale  of  their  products, 
it  is  at  once  evident  that  they  cannot  get  enough  of  their 
product  to  avoid  over-production,  unless  a  world-union  of 
farmers  to  hold  up  the  price  of  their  agricultural  products 
can  be  formed.  This,  on  the  face  of  it,  is  an  impossibility. 
And  it  is  not  only  the  farmers  who  are  cutting  their  own 
throats  by  competition.  There  is  an  immense  body  of  small 
middle-class  men,  merchants,  etc.,  who,  through  competition, 
are  also  selling  their  services  at  a  mere  subsistence  living. 
Then,  of  course,  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  laborers 


Mr.  Gompers  and  His  Little  Plan.  291 

who  can  never  be  organized  into  a  trade  union  and  who  are 
getting  mere  subsistence  wages.  The  only  people  who  can 
be  raised  above  the  mere  subsistence  wage  are  practically 
those  who  are  already  organized  in  the  trades  unions,  and 
these  constitute  only  about  one-ninth  of  the  wage-workers 
of  the  United  States.  And  even  with  the  trades  unionists, 
their  own  estimate  of  what  they  should  have  is  so  very  low, 
being  only  a  few  cents  a  day  above  a  subsistence  wage,  that 
even  if  all  the  organized  workers  got  trade-union  wages  it 
would  have  little  effect  in  relieving  the  glutted  market  of  the 
world. 

Again,  we  have  not  taken  into  consideration  the  competi- 
tion of  the  capitalist  who  is  removed  from  the  possibility  of 
entering  into  a  trust  and  has  the  price  of  his  products  low- 
ered by  competition  exactly  as  are  those  of  the  farmer.  The 
capitalist  himself  lowers  his  prices  in  the  struggle  for  a 
market. 

This  theory  of  an  industrial  feudalism  is  one  of  the  wildest 
and  most  ridiculous  ones  that  has  ever  originated  in  the 
mind  of  man;  but,  luckily,  outside  of  a  few  dreamy  socialists 
of  the  half-baked  variety,  who  are  so  far  removed  from  the 
actual  affairs  of  this  world,  that  what  they  think  is  of  no 
importance,  it  is  held  by  no  one. 

Another  idea  that  is  being  suggested  in  this  connection  is 
equally  absurd.  It  is  that  the  capitalists  when  they  find  a 
period  of  depression  coming  on,  and  that  they  cannot  utilize 
labor  in  productive  enterprises,  will  transfer  it  from  produc- 
tive occupation  and  use  it  creating  luxuries.  To  speak  con- 
cretely: if  Mr.  Schwab,  who  is  a  large  holder  of  steel  trust 
stock,  finds  that  there  is  a  slack  in  the  demand  for  steel,  and 
that  he  cannot  employ  laborers  to  make  more  steel,  he  would 
take  five  thousand  men  away  from  the  steel  mills  and  set  them 
to  work  raising  roses  in  his  garden. 

The  absurdity  of  this-  is  at  once  evident  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  when  over-production  of  steel  exhibits  itself  it 
means  that  a  much  lower  price  will  be  paid  for  steel.  This 
means  a  tremendous  falling  off  in  the  profits  of  the  steel 
trust  and  naturally  a  great  diminution  of  Mr.  Schwab's  in- 
come. It  may  be  that  his  income  may  sink  to  practically 
nothing,  if  all  his  capital  is  invested  in  the  steel  trust.  So 
that  these  Utopian  dreamers  would  argue  that  the  moment 


292  Wilshire    Editorials. 

Schwab's  income  sinks  to  zero,  it  will  be  the  signal  for  him 
to  employ  thousands  of  men  in  growing  roses,  merely  to  keep 
them  employed.  Just  when  Schwab  would  naturally  econ- 
omize he  is  to  splurge.  Further  analysis  of  this  absurd  idea 
is  quite  unnecessary.  It  is  even  more  absurd  than  Mr.  Gom- 
pers'  idea  of  the  capitalists  keeping  up  high  wages  on  a  fall- 
ing market.  There  is  no  future  for  this  country  except  so- 
cialism, and  there  is  no  possibility  of  benevolent  feudalism 
or  any  other  thing,  side-tracking  the  irresistible  movement 
of  humanity  to  its  inevitable  goal  of  socialism. 


Monopoly  a  Necessity.  293 


MONOPOLY  A  NECESSITY 

THE  series  of  interesting  articles  upon  Mr.  Rockefeller 
is  still  running  in  McClure's  Magazine.  The  author 
is  Miss  Tarbell,  and  her  story  certainly  shows  great 
ability  in  the  gathering  of  information.  It  would  seem,  how- 
ever, that  if  Miss  Tarbell  could  understand  better  that  Mr. 
Rockefeller  was  forced  by  unavoidable  circumstances  to  pur- 
sue his  path  of  consolidation,  she  would  write  a  more  sym- 
pathetic article  and  one  in  which  the  philosophy  would  be 
more  apparent.  No  causality  permeates  her  story.  She  does 
not  correlate  her  facts,  as  she  might  easily  do  by  making  the 
predominating  note  the  necessity  of  things. 

If  a  leak  be  found  in  a  Mississippi  River  levee  it  becomes 
imperative  that  it  be  stopped  at  once,  for  every  drop  of  water 
that  goes  through  increases  the  opening,  until  finally  the 
crevice  becomes  so  great  that  nothing  can  prevent  the  ruin 
of  the  fertile  fields  that  lie  beyond  the  levee.  No  sacrifice  is 
too  great  for  the  planters  to  make  to  prevent  such  a  leak,  and 
nothing  is  considered  a  greater  crime  than  to  weaken  the 
levee.  During  periods  of  flood,  patrols  walk  up  and  down  on 
the  levee,  armed  with  rifles,  to  shoot  down  any  pilot  who 
runs  his  steamboat  so  near  to  the  levee  that  the  wash  from 
the  boat  damages  it. 

Competition  in  a  business  like  the  oil  business,  or,  in  fact, 
any  business  furnishing  a  commodity  of  which  price  is  a  de- 
termining factor  in  finding  a  market,  is  just  as  dangerous 
to  the  stability  of  that  business  as  a  break  in  the  levee  is  to 
a  plantation  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi.  If  competition 
is  not  stopped  at  once,  it  grows  worse  and  worse,  until 
finally  the  business  is  swamped.  For  instance,  here  is  Mr. 
Rockefeller  with  a  monopoly  of  the  oil  business.  A  small 
refiner,  say,  like  Mr.  George  Rice  of  Marietta,  competes  with 
him.  Mr.  Rice,  in  order  to  sell  his  oil,  sells  it  at  a  little 
lower  price  than  Mr.  Rockefeller  sells  his.  Mr.  Rockefeller 
holds  up  the  price,  so  that  Mr.  Rice  can  make  money,  even 


294  Wilshire   Editorials. 

if  he  must  take  a  cent  per  gallon  less  than  Mr.  Rockefeller 
gets.  Then  Mr.  Rice  uses  the  profits  that  he  so  makes  in 
enlarging  his  refinery  and  next  month  he  sells  still  more  oil 
and  again  uses  the  profits  for  still  further  enlargements. 
Meanwhile,  it  must  be  understood  that  Mr.  Rockefeller  has 
more  refineries  than  enough  to  supply  the  market.  He  sees 
his  own  refineries  standing  idle  because  he  has  closed  them 
to  prevent  the  lowering  of  price  by  the  production  of  too 
much  oil.  Mr.  Rice  takes  advantage  of  the  situation  to  pro- 
duce more  and  more  oil.  Rockefeller  holds  up  the  umbrella 
to  protect  Rice.  His  profit  is  the  result  of  Mr.  Rockefeller's 
restricting  production.  What  would  happen  if  Mr.  Rockefel- 
ler allowed  this  thing  to  go  on?  Mr.  Rice  would  finally  have 
just  as  large  a  plant  as  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  the  market  would 
soon  be  flooded,  and  both  would  go  down  in  a  common  sea  of 
bankruptcy  through  the  ruinous  prices  made  as  the  result 
of  this  overproduction. 

"We  justify  a  man  going  to  any  extreme  to  preserve  his  own 
life  and  that  of  his  familty.  Self-preservation  is  the  first  law 
of  nature.  A  man's  business  is  his  support  in  life,  and  if  you 
take  that  away  you  take  away  his  life.  It  may  seem  absurd 
to  talk  about  such  a  small  competitor  as  Mr.  Rice  taking 
away  the  life  of  the  Standard  Oil  Trust;  but  a  little  mole 
may  start  a  hole  in  the  levee  which  will  develop  into  a  cre- 
vasse allowing  the  Mississippi  to  sweep  away  a  whole  country. 
Hence,  when  we  hear  tales  of  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  having 
gone  to  the  utmost  extreme  in  order  to  exterminate  com- 
petitors, even  to  blowing  up  their  oil  refineries  with  dyn- 
amite, we  need  not  be  astonished  at  the  heroic  measures  em- 
ployed. It  is  simply  a  question  of  self-preservation.  When  the 
trades  unions  resort  to  every  possible  means,  legal  or  illegal, 
to  prevent  even  one  "scab"  doing  work  in  competition  with 
the  union,  they  are  pursuing  exactly  the  same  policy.  They 
know  that  if  one  scab  is  allowed  to  work,  more  scabs  will 
come  in,  and  finally  there  will  be  enough  at  work  to  break  up 
the  union.  The  number  of  non-union  men  employed  in  a 
shop  may  be  insignificant  as  compared  with  the  number  of 
union  men,  but  it  presents  just  the  same  kind  of  danger  that 
Mr.  Rice's  small  capital  against  the  enormous  capital  of  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  does,  if  allowed  to  exist  in  competition 
with  it. 


Monopoly  a  Necessity.  295 

This  necessity  for  the  extermination  of  competitors  in  the 
capitalistic  world  is  going  to  be  brought  very  clearly  before 
us  during  the  next  year,  when  profits  and  interest  approach 
the  vanishing  point,  coincident  with  the  disappearance  of 
prosperity.  The  necessity  for  monopoly  is  going  to  be  in- 
finitely more  apparent  in  the  near  future  than  it  has  ever 
been  in  the  past.  This  will  apply  to  the  trades  unionists  as 
well  as  to  the  capitalists,  and  all  possible  means  to  secure  it 
will  probably  be  used  by  both  sides. 


296  Wilshire   Editorials. 


UNDIGESTED  SECURITIES 

THERE  has  been  considerable  discussion  in  the  news- 
papers about  the  menace  to  our  industrial  situation 
resulting  from  the  public  being  unable  or  unwilling 
to  buy  a  large  mass  of  securities,  bonds,  stocks,  etc.,  which 
Mr.  Morgan  and  his  associates  have  recently  issued,  based 
upon  various  enterprises  incorporated  by  those  esteemed 
gentlemen. 

In  order  to  understand  the  economic  position  clearly,  let 
us  suppose  that  there  are  but  three  capitalists  in  the  world, 
viz.,  Morgan,  Vanderbilt  and  Rockefeller,  and  that  these 
three  men  own  the  whole  earth.  They  look  over  this  sphere 
and  determine  that  certain  railroads  and  canals  and  steel 
works  can  be  built  which  would  give  certain  facilities  for 
the  production  of  material  commodities  better  than  those 
now  existing.  Suppose  they  detail,  after  a  careful  calcula- 
tion, say,  two-thirds  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  to  the 
work  of  manufacturing  the  food,  clothing,  housing,  etc., 
which  they  find  necessary  for  the  whole  of  the  inhabitants. 
They  divide  the  remaining  one-third  of  the  people  into  two 
parts,  detailing  one  part,  i.  e.,  one-sixth  of  the  whole,  to  con- 
struct such  new  industries  as  they  may  think  are  wanted,  and 
then  they  set  the  other  half  to  work  producing  luxuries  for 
themselves  or  working  as  their  servants,  footmen,  coach- 
men, etc. 

This  is  practically  the  industrial  process  now  going  on. 
As  long  as  Vanderbilt,  Morgan  and  Rockefeller  can  keep  the 
whole  six-sixths  of  us  employed,  there  is  no  danger  of  any 
unemployed  problem  or  any  trouble  about  undigested  securi- 
ties. If  it  take  a  full  three-thirds  of  the  earth's  population 
to  produce  wealth  enough  for  the  whole  two-thirds,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  if  any  larger  part  than  the  remaining  one-third 
were  devoted  to  the  production  of  new  machinery  or  of 
luxuries,  then  the  excess  must  be  subtracted  from  the  two- 
thirds,  the  number  necessary  to  feed  the  whole  three-thirds. 


Undigested  Securities.  297 

However,  supposing  the  capitalists  were  so  eager  to  build 
new  railroads  or  so  greedy  to  enjoy  luxuries  that  they  would 
employ  more  than  the  one-third  at  such  occupations,  the  result 
would  be  a  diminution  in  the  amount  of  grain  and  pork  pro- 
duced, since  the  necessary  two-thirds  would  not  be  working, 
which  would  force  part  of  the  world  to  go  hungry.  This 
would  be  the  condition  which  is  described  in  the  economic 
phraseology:  "Too  much  floating  capital  has  become  fixed 
capital."  That  is,  we  would  be  building  railroads  more  rap- 
idly than  we  could  afford.  Now,  supposing  Mr.  Vanderbilt 
had  desired  to  build  more  railroads  than  Mr.  Kockefeller 
thought  the  world  could  afford  to  build,  and  Mr.  Kockefeller 
therefore  would  not  join  him;  and  he  would  say  to  Mr.  Van- 
derbilt: "Look  here,  Vanderbilt,  you  may  go  ahead  and 
build  as  many  railroads  as  you  wish  or  you  think  needed. 
I  will  lend  you  money  to  do  it  with,  if  you  will  pledge  your 
part  of  the  world  to  me  as  security  for  repayment."  In  other 
words,  Vanderbilt  assumes  the  risk  and  will  get  the  profits 
or  meet  the  losses,  while  Kockefeller  advances  the  money 
and  gets  simply  interest.  This  advance  of  money  simply 
means  that  Kockefeller  allows  Vanderbilt  part  of  his  share  of 
the  products  of  his  laborers  to  feed  and  clothe  his,  Vander- 
bilfs,  laborers  in  payment  for  their  producing  more  railroads 
for  Vanderbilt. 

If  before  the  completion  of  the  railroad,  or  even  after  it, 
Rockefeller  should  demand  payment  from  Vanderbilt  of  what 
had  been  lent'  to  him,  and  Vanderbilt  could  not  pay,  of 
course  Rockefeller  would  be  in  a  position  to  force  Vander- 
bilt to  give  up  a  part  of  his  share  of  the  earth,  Rockefeller 
would  foreclose  his  mortgage.  Of  course,  if  Rockefeller  would 
give  Vanderbilt  time,  Vanderbilt  might  finally  pay  him  off, 
but  it  might  be  that  conditions  would  be  such  that  Rocke- 
feller would  insist  upon  immediate  payment,  and  Vanderbilt 
would  be  in  a  bad  way.  By  immediate  payment,  as  thing3 
go  to-day,  we  mean  payment  in  gold.  But  gold  is  obtained 
from  the  laborer  who  mines  it  by  the  exchange  of  other  com- 
modities produced  by  other  laborers;  so  that  Vanderbilt's 
laborers  in  time  would  produce  sufficient  food  to  feed  other 
laborers  digging  out  gold,  and  this  gold  would  first  go  into 
Vanderbilt's  hands  and  then  come  into  Rockefeller's  hands 
in  payment  of  the  debt.     But  all  this  takes  time,  and  time 


298  Wilshire   Editorials. 

might  be  the  element  most  important  in  the  case  and  be 
vital  to  Vanderbilt's  being  able  to  liquidate  his  indebtedness 
to  Kockefeller. 

Suppose  Vanderbilt  is  building  railroads  to-day,  that  he  is 
issuing  bonds  and  stocks  upon  these  railroads,  which  are  vir- 
tually notes  of  indebtedness,  and  that  he  expects  to  sell  these 
stocks  and  bonds  to  Rockefeller.  But  Rockefeller  does  not 
buy  with  the  avidity  that  he  might  be  expected  to  do.  Vander- 
bilt would  find  himself  with  a  lot  of  "undigested  securities" 
on  hand  which  he  could  not  dispose  of.  In  the  course  of 
time  Vanderbilt  himself  could  take  up  his  own-  undigested 
securities,  so  to  speak,  from  the  income  of  his  own  properties, 
and  also  in  course  of  time  Rockefeller  and  Morgan,  from  the 
income  of  their  properties,  would  have  a  surplus  on  hand  to 
buy  such  securities,  because  they  would  have  no  other  place  to 
invest  their  surplus  incomes.  But  again,  this  is  all  a  ques- 
tion of  "time."  Therefore,  the  problem  of  "undigested  se- 
curities" is,  like  any  other  question  of  digestion,  one  of  time. 
A  man  eats  a  hearty  dinner;  if  he  is  in  a  healthy  state  and 
you  give  him  time  he  will  digest  it,  and  nothing  else  but  time 
can  effect  the  digestion. 

"Undigested  securities"  simply  mean  that  a  certain  part  of 
the  capitalists  have  overbuilt  the  machinery  of  production 
and  their  bonds  and  securities  issued  upon  this  footing  have 
not  been  sold  to  other  capitalists  as  readily  as  was  anticipated. 
However,  unless  financial  disturbance  takes  place,  this  con- 
dition is  of  no  material  consequence,  inasmuch  as  it  only  re- 
quires time  to  straighten  matters  out.  That  is,  this  will  be 
true  if  the  inordinate  construction  of  new  machinery  be 
abated. 

Another  phrase,  which  is  often  used  when  issuing  bonds 
for  the  payment  of  certain  improvements,  is  "we  will  let 
posterity  pay  for  the  said  improvements."  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  any  work  that  is  being  done  on  earth  to-day,  building 
railroads  or  anything  else,  must  be  and  can  only  be  done  by 
the  present  generation,  and  it  is  absurd  to  talk  about  a 
generation  which  is  yet  unborn  doing  any  work  for  us.  If 
bonds  are  issued  by  a  city  in  order  to  pay  for  its  sewer  system, 
it  simply  means  that  labor  is  being  performed  in  some  other 
part  of  the  world,  for  instance,  raising  wheat  and  pork — and 
this  food  is  lent  by  the  capitalist  constructing  such  improve- 


Undigested  Securities.  299 

merits  to  the  citizen  of  that  town  to  feed  them  while  they 
are  building  their  sewer,  upon  the  pledge  that  the  said  pork 
and  wheat  shall  be  paid  back  at  some  future  day  with  an 
added  percentage  in  the  way  of  interest.  Taking  the  earth 
as  a  whole,  however,  it  is  absurd  to  talk  about  posterity  con- 
structing any  present-day  improvements.  The  "posterity" 
that  works  for  us  is  simply  the  present  generation  in  a  differ- 
ent locality. 

The  danger  of  to-day  consists  not  in  undigested  securities, 
but  rather  in  capitalist  society  not  having  enough  securities 
furnished  it  to  feed  it.  Of  course,  as  in  the  case  of  an  indi- 
vidual laborer,  there  are  times  when  he  may  surfer  from  indi- 
gestion from  eating  too  much  food,  but  his  great  danger  is 
not  over-eating,  but  in  the  possibility  that  some  day  he  will 
not  have  enough  to  eat.  The  continuance  of  our  capitalist  sys- 
tem depends  upon  the  construction  of  more  and  more  machin- 
ery, and  this  machinery,  whether  it  be  a  new  railroad  or  a  new 
telegraph  cable,  is  represented  by  new  securities,  bonds  and 
stocks,  and  when  the  world  reaches  the  point  where  no  more 
of  these  machines  are  needed,  there  will  be  no  more  bonds 
thrown  on  the  market.  The  consequence  will  be  that  the 
stock  market  will  be  suffering  from  a  scarcity  of  stocks  rather 
than  from  a  surplus.  The  immediate  result  will  be  a  great 
rise  in  the  price  of  existing  stocks  and  bonds;  unless,  which  is 
very  possible,  there  should  be  a  period  of  great  commercial 
depression  owing  to  general  overproduction,  which  will  so  re- 
duce the  earnings  of  existing  stocks  that  prices  fall,  notwith- 
standing that  no  more  stocks  are  being  added  to  the  general 
market.  The  moment  the  process  of  construction  of  new 
machinery  ceases,  and  it  must  cease  owing  to  the  practical 
completion  of  the  industrial  equipment,  then  we  will  be 
confronted  with  a  great  unemployed  problem.  While  this 
unemployed  problem  may  take  place  coincidently  with  the 
phenomenon  of  "undigested  securities,"  the  only  reason  that 
they  are  coincident  is  that  the  securities  have  been  issued 
upon  the  last  lot  of  machinery  constructed,  and  which  has 
failed  to  pay  dividends  owing  to  there  having  been  no  com- 
mercial demand  for  such  machinery. 

Every  day  there  are  less  and  less  opportunities  for  the  in- 
vestment of  capital  in  enterprises  which  promise  safety  and 
security.     The  result  is  that  a  great  deal  of  machinery  ia 


300  Wilshire   Editorials. 

likely  to  be  built  for  which  there  is  no  demand,  in  the  capi- 
talistic sense;  and  upon  this  machinery  there  will  be  floated 
stocks  and  bonds  which  will  probably  in  very  many  instances 
never  pay  any  dividends.  Such  securities  will,  of  course, 
remain  "undigested/'  for  they  are  of  the  nature  of  food  known 
to  be  innutritious  and  indigestible,  and  consequently  in  no 
demand.  In  the  continued  manifestation  and  appearance  of 
this  kind  of  undigested  securities  there  is  indeed  a  menace 
to  our  whole  financial  structure;  and  it  is  probable  that  many 
of  the  securities  which  are  classed  to-day  among  the  "un- 
digested" are  of  this  nature.  In  fact,  the  recent  failure  of 
the  Shipbuilding  Trust  and  of  several  other  great  corpora- 
tions would  seem  to  indicate  that  even  though  time  were 
given,  the  public  would  be  very  unlikely  to  take  over  such 
securities,  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  of  a  nature  to  attract  in- 
vestors, since  they  would  have  very  little  likelihood  of  ever 
paying  dividends. 

Thus,  one  sees  that  the  cry  of  "undigested  securities"  is  of 
no  especial  menace  if  the  securities  are  based  upon  legitimate 
financial  operations,  provided  we  have  time  to  allow  the  pub- 
lic to  gradually  absorb  such  securities.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  they  represent  such  wildcat  concerns  as  the  Shipbuilding 
Trust,  they  are  a  menace  to  our  financial  system  and  a 
prophecy  of  its  early  collapse. 

The  financial  system  and  the  industrial  system,  though 
closely  related,  are  not  necessarily  affected  by  the  same  con- 
ditions. The  financial  systems  of  the  world,  and  especially 
those  of  the  United  States,  are  of  a  much  more  delicate 
nature  and  more  liable  to  derangement  than  the  industrial 
system.  Our  industrial  system  will  break  down  only  when 
we  finally  reach  the  stage  of  complete  overproduction  of 
mechanical  equipment.  Our  financial  system  can  break  down 
from  a  number  of  causes,  at  any  time,  and  it  is  very  likely  that 
a  violent  financial  crisis  will  be  precipitated  upon  us  some 
years  ahead  of  the  inevitable  and  final  industrial  crisis.  Of 
course,  it  is  understood  that  a  financial  crisis  must  bring  on 
our  industrial  crisis.  Any  day  might  see  some  great  banking 
concern  break,  which  would  pull  down  other  banking  con- 
cerns, and  throw  the  whole  financial  world  into  a  state  of 
collapse.  This  collapse  would  naturally  bring  down  at  the 
same  time  our  industrial  structure;  and  we  may  not  have  to 


Undigested  Securities.  301 

wait  until  the  industrial  structure  is  completed  before  we 
shall  see  the  end  of  our  competitive  system. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  industrial  structure  is  already  in 
a  state  so  near  completion,  that  any  great  financial  crisis  is 
very  likely  to  usher  in  the  transformation  of  society  from 
Capitalism  into  Socialism. 


302  Wilshire    Editorials. 


TESLA'S  GREAT  PROMISE 

NIKOLA  TESLA  has  recently  announced  that  he  is 
about  to  perfect  an  invention  which  will  distribute 
electric  power  from  a  central  plant  throughout  the 
earth,  so  that,  for  instance,  the  electricity  may  be  developed 
at  Niagara  and  that  it  may  be  used  in  London.  Not  only 
that,  but  we  will  send  news,  without  wires,  to  any  part  of  the 
world.  A  man  may  be  isolated  in  the  heart  of  Africa  and 
yet  be  in  perfect  communication  with  New  York  or  London. 
It  is  said  that  whatever  the  mind  of  man  conceives  he  can 
put  into  operation,  so  that  even  if  Mr.  Tesla  does  not  realize 
his  hopes  at  present,  then  some  other  man  will  do  so  some 
day.  Human  society  as  a  whole  is  an  organism  and  it  is  cer- 
tainly in  the  line  of  development  that  every  portion  of  that 
organism  should  be  in  intellectual  touch  with  every  other 
portion.  To-day  large  portions  of  humanity  are  quite  sep- 
arated from  the  whole,  and  even  those  portions  which  are 
most  closely  in  contact,  as  for  instance  society  as  organized 
within  the  United  States,  where  we  have  telegraphic  and 
telephonic  communication,  there  is  left  much  to  be  desired. 
Perfection  for  the  human  race  will  not  come  until  each  in- 
dividual human  being  will  be  as  consciously  in  touch  with 
every  other  human  being  as  is  each  cell  in  his  body  con- 
sciously related  to  every  other  cell  in  his  body.  It  will  be  just 
as  impossible  for  a  man  to  be  happy  when  he  knows  that 
another  man  is  unhappy  while  it  is  possible  for  him  to  be 
relieved  of  pain,  as  it  is  for  an  individual  to  be  happy  when 
any  part  of  his  physical  body  is  in  pain.  In  the  lowest  form 
of  life,  the  amoeba,  there  is  no  organic  connection  between 
the  members.  One  part  may  be  injured  and  the  rest  of  the 
body  not  know  it,  nor  have  any  care  for  the  injured  part. 
The  amoeba  may  be  cut  into  four  or  five  different  pieces  and 
each  part  will  become  an  organism  by  itself  as  complete  and 
perfect  as  the  parent  organism.  As  the  amoeba  has  devel- 
oped higher  and  higher  in  the  scale  of  life,  it  becomes  more 
and  more   organized  and  different  parts  assume  particular 


Tesla's  Great  Promise.  303 

functions.  Instead  of  every  part  being  an  eye  and  every  part 
being  a  stomach,  one  part  specializes  and  becomes  an  eye, 
and  another  part  specializes  and  becomes  a  stomach,  etc. 
In  this  higher  form  of  life  we  see,  for  instance,  that  it  is 
manifestly  impossible  to  injure  any  part  without  the  rest  of 
the  parts  suffering.  It  is  ridiculous  to  think  of  cutting  a 
dog  into  five  different  pieces  and  making  five  new  dogs. 
Human  society  is  analogous  in  its  development  to  the 
amoeba.  Fifty  years  ago;  before  we  had  railways,  we  could 
have  divided  the  United  States  into  different  sections  and 
it  would  have  made  little  difference  to  the  country  as  a 
whole,  inasmuch  as  communication  was  so  infrequent  and 
difficult  between  the  sections  that  they  were  in  no  way  inter- 
dependent upon  each  other  as  to-day.  There  was  neither  the 
exchange  of  goods  nor  the  exchange  of  intelligence  which 
is  now  prevailing.  In  the  same  way,  as  the  different  nations 
of  the  earth  have  become  more  organically  united  within 
themselves,  they  have  become  also  organically  united  nation 
to  nation  in  a  world  trade  federation.  Just  as  industry  has 
progressed  from  the  national  stage  to  the  world  stage,  so  has 
human  sympathy  made  like  progress,  and  now  the  perfection 
of  the  means  for  the  conyevance  of  this  organic  world 
thought  seems  to  be  about  to  be  disclosed  to  us  by  Nikola 
Tesla. 


304  Wilshibe   Editorials. 


BRYAN  EXPLAINS  SOCIALISM 

ME.  BRYAN  has  at  last  been  driven  from  cover  by  the 
attacks  of  the  Chicago  Chronicle  denouncing  him 
as  a  Socialist.  He  has  a  long  editorial  in  the 
late  Commoner,  in  which  he  explains  why  he  is  not  a  So- 
cialist. He  admitted  that  he  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
monopoly  in  railroads  and  telephones  and  telegraphs  has  come 
to  stay,  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  better  to  have  public  mon- 
opoly than  private  monopoly.  But  he  is  not  prepared  to 
admit  that  there  is  any  economic  necessity  for  trusts  in  the 
manufacture  of  cotton  and  woolen  goods,  whiskey,  or  oil,  or 
tobacco,  etc.  He  says:  "These  trusts  are  organized  not  be- 
cause of  any  economic  necessity,  but  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
stroying competition. "  The  question  I  would  like  to  put  to 
Mr.  Bryan  is:  That  if  it  becomes  an  economic  necessity  to 
destroy  competition,  is  not  then  the  trust  an  economic  neces- 
sity? Mr.  Bryan  does  not  understand  that  the  accumulation 
of  surplus  capital  in  this  country,  which  has  hitherto  been 
poured  into  the  building  of  productive  machinery,  has  now 
finally  rendered  it  much  greater  than  any  economic  demand. 
Over-production  has  ensued  and  over-production  means  cut- 
throat competition  and  cut-throat  competition  means  bank- 
ruptcy unless  it  is  prevented.  If  Mr.  Bryan  could  only  un- 
derstand that  the  trust  is  an  absolute  economic  necessity  to 
prevent  over-production,  we  would  have  him  right  in  line 
in  seeing  the  necessity  of  the  trust.  When  he  sees  the  neces- 
sity of  the  trust  in  manufacturing  enterprises  he  will  be 
compelled  to  logically  conclude  with  the  Socialists  that  such 
monopolies  along  with  railroad  monopolies  should  be  nation- 
alized. Mr.  Bryan  is  moving,  but  moving  slowly.  He  says 
he  now  sees  that  the  borrower  is  not  on  the  same  footing  as 
the  lender,  therefore  he  favors  limiting  the  rate  of  interest. 
He  sees  that  the  employee  is  not  on  the  same  footing  as  the 
employer,  therefore  he  favors  the  limitation  of  the  hours  of 
labor  and  the  prevention  of  the  employment  of  children. 
These  are  great  steps  in  advance  for  Mr.  Bryan,  who,  only 


Bryan  Explains  Socialism.  305 

a  few  years  ago,  was  declaring  for  free  trade  in  everything, 
silver,  as  well  as  labor.  He  belonged  to  the  old  Adam  Smith 
school  of  laissez-faire  economists.  However,  now  that  he 
sees  that  the  employee  is  not  on  a  footing  with  the  employer, 
and  is  attempting  to  put  him  more  on  an  equality,  we  would 
like  to  ask  him  if  the  best  way  to  get  him  there  is  not  to  put 
him  on  an  equality  of  wealth.  This  is  what  public  ownership 
of  the  means  of  production  would  do.  It  is  a  pity  that  Bryan 
does  not  understand  his  economics  better  than  he  does,  as 
there  is  no  one  in  the  country  who  has  a  better  opportunity 
of  getting  his  views  heard. 


306  Wilshike    Editorials, 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  A  WHEELBARROW 

THE  way  the  President  is  absorbing  the  spirit  of  the 
times,  the  rapidity  with  which  he  is  moving  along 
to  the  Socialist  position,  is  a  mile-post  showing  us 
how  rapidly  the  whole  nation  is  commencing  to  take  a  new 
viewpoint. 

The  President  speaks  of  "organized  capital"  and  "organ- 
ized" labor.    What  does  he  really  mean? 

What  is  capital?  A  wheelbarrow  is  capital.  What  is  "organ- 
ized" capital.  A  number  of  wheelbarrows  or  cars  pushed  by 
a  steam  engine  over  an  iron  roadbed  is  a  railway,  it  is  capital, 
it  is  "organized"  capital. 

What  rights  has  a  wheelbarrow?    Can  it  vote? 

What  is  labor?  It  is  men.  You  say  you  will  hire  labor  to 
build  a  house.  What  do  you  mean?  You  mean  you  will  hire 
men.  What  is  "organized"  labor?  It  is  men  who  have 
assembled  together  for  the  purpose  of  systematically  carrying 
out  a  certain  project. 

Suppose  you  were  cast  away  on  an  island  all  alone  with  one 
wheelbarrow.  Suppose  some  fine  day  the  wheelbarrow  should 
say  to  you,  "See  here,  young  man,  you  are  Labor  and  I  am 
Capital,  and  I  wish  you  to  understand  that  I  have  just  as 
many  rights  as  you  have.  In  fact,  I  have  more  rights,  for 
I  have  the  right  of  doing  nothing  and  being  kept  in  good 
condition  and  well  oiled,  while  you  get  nothing  unless  you 
work.  You  have  no  right  to  use  me  to  wheel  dirt  or  to  do 
anything  else  until  you  get  my  permission."  You  say  that 
only  one  having  a  disordered  brain  would  ever  seriously  think 
of  a  wheelbarrow  having  a  personality,  a  few  sticks  of  wood 
and  an  iron  hoop  stuck  together  as  having  rights.  Very  well. 
Then  let  us  suppose  that  a  ship  is  wrecked  on  your  island; 
the  passengers  and  crew  escape  and  join  you  in  the  work  of 
making  the  problem  of  gaining  food  supply  simpler  by  build- 
ing all  sorts  of  ingenious  machinery.    In  other  words,  they 


The  Eights  of  a  Wheelbarrow.  307 

become  "organized  labor"  and  the  wheelbarrow  is  transformed 
into  a  railway  and  becomes  "organized  capital." 

Now  you  who  laughed  to  scorn  the  idea  of  the  wheelbarrow 
as  capital  asserting  its  rights,  what  would  you  say  to  the  rail- 
way as  "organized"  capital  asserting  its  rights?  Would  you 
not  say  it  is  just  as  absurd  to  talk  of  rights  of  a  wheelbarrow 
as  rights  of  capital? 

Now  then,  if  you  see  the  absurdity  of  rights  of  capital  upon 
a  hypothetical  island,  then  why  can  you  not  see  the  same 
absurdity  when  your  President  talks  about  the  rights  of 
capital  in  your  own  country? 

You  may  explain  that  he  does  not  really  mean  rights  of 
capital,  but  rights  of  the  men  who  own  capital,  or  capitalists. 
I  ask  then  if  the  man  who  owns  capital  has  any  rights  that 
the  man  who  does  not  own  capital  is  not  entitled  to,  then  is  it 
not  really  capital  that  has  the  superior  rights  and  not  the 
owner  ?    Suppose  he  lose  his  capital  on  Wall  Street  ? 

August  Belmont  lost  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  railway 
over  night  last  winter  when  John  W.  Gates  made  his  famous 
raid.  Do  not  the  rights  which  he  held  by  virtue  of  his  owner- 
ship of  capital  depart  with  the  capital?  Admitting  this,  can 
you  still  say  that  it  is  not  capital,  but  the  man  who  owns  the 
capital,  that  has  the  rights? 

The  President  is  not  wrong  in  speaking  of  the  rights  of 
capital,  for  capital  has  rights  which  are  very  superior  to  the 
rights  of  man. 

However,  when  the  President  uses  sucb  phrases  as  "organ- 
ized labor"  and  "organized  capital"  and  puts  them  in  anti- 
thesis as  having  respective  rights,  it  means  the  day  when 
some  inquisitive  man  will  be  inquiring,  "Why  should  not 
Organized  Capital  be  Owned  and  Controlled  by  Organized 
Labor?  and  then  we  will  have  no  more  of  this  absurd  discus- 
sion about  the  rights  of  capital." 


308  Wilshike   Editoeials. 


TO  THE  VOTERS  OF  THE  10th  CONGRES- 
SIONAL DISTRICT,  NEW  YORK 

DO  you  wish,  to  abolish  poverty?    You  will  say,  of  course, 
you  do. 
But  you  will  add  that  it  can't  be  done.    This  is  a 
mistake. 

It  is  true  you  cannot,  and  neither  can  I,  abolish  poverty, 
but,  nevertheless,  poverty  can  be  abolished  if  you  and  I  can 
get  enough  other  people  to  help  us  in  the  task. 

There  is  nothing  impossible  about  abolishing  poverty.  The 
only  difficulty  lies  in  getting  people  to  see  that  it  can  be  done. 
There  is  enough  of  wealth  in  the  world  to  make  everybody 
wealthy  if  it  were  only  properly  distributed.  The  trouble  is 
that  those  who  produce  the  wealth  don't  get  it. 

It  is  not  owing  to  "under-production"  that  we  have  pov- 
erty. On  the  contrary,  what  we  all  fear  to-day  is  "over-pro- 
duction/' for  when  that  happens  men  cannot  get  work,  and 
so  they  starve  to  death  because  there  is  too  much  food. 

See  what  a  vicious  circle  we  are  in.  Is  it  not  an  absurd- 
ity that  because  the  baker  has  more  bread  than  he  can  sell, 
you  cannot  get  a  job  baking  bread,  and,  therefore,  you  can't 
get  the  wages  to  buy  bread,  and,  therefore,  since  he  has  more 
bread  than  he  can  sell,  and  as  you  can't  buy  the  bread  you 
want  for  the  lack  of  wages,  you  must  starve,  because  there  is 
too  much  bread?  How  ridiculous!  You  might  say  that  you 
would  never  see  yourself  starving  if  you  knew  there  was 
bread  at  hand.  This  is  precisely  what  everybody  else  thinks, 
but  we  all  know  that  plenty  of  people  do  starve  every  month, 
here  in  New  York  City,  notwithstanding  there  is  plenty  of 
bread  here.  However,  it  would  not  help  general  conditions 
any  if  a  few  of  us  did  make  a  raid  on  the  bakeries  and  take 
the  bread  when  we  were  hungry.  We  could  not  do  it  more 
than  once,  for  the  next  tame  the  baker  would  either  have 
plenty  of  police  to  guard  his  shop,  and  if  he  did  not  then 
feel  safe,  he  would  buy  no  flour  and  bake  no  bread  for  us 
to  take. 


To  Voters  of  10th  Congressional  Dist.,  N.  Y.    309 

It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  baker  that  we  don't  get  bread. 
We  all  know  that  he  is  simply  subject  to  the  same  condition 
that  all  the  rest  of  us  are.  He  must  find  a  market  for  his 
bread  or  he  will  go  bankrupt,  exactly  as  the  workman  must 
find  a  market  for  his  labor  or  go  hungry. 

The  reason  why  we  don't  get  food  in  the  midst  of  plenty 
is  simply  because  our  competitive  wage  system  prevents  us 
distributing  to  ourselves  what  we  produce. 

A  man's  labor  is  valued  not  at  what  it  produces,  but  at 
what  the  employer  can  hire  an  unemployed  man  for  to  take 
his  place.  There  are  always  plenty  of  unemployed  men  who 
are  forced  to  take  any  wage  that  will  give  them  simply  a 
bare  living,  and  as  long  as  such  labor  is  to  be  had  in  abund- 
ance no  employer  will  pay  a  higher  wage. 

As  the  workers  are  the  great  consuming  class,  it  follows 
that  when  the  wages  they  are  paid  do  not  allow  them  to 
buy  back  the  enormous  product  which  is  now  the  result  of 
their  labor,  assisted  by  modern  machinery,  then  a  glut  in 
the  market  must  result.  More  is  produced  than  can  be  sold. 
We  then  have  what  is  called  "over-production,"  which  sim- 
ply means  that  we  have  produced  more  than  the  existing 
competitive  system  allows  us  to  distribute.  The  remedy  is 
not  to  be  found  in  diminishing  production,  but  in  increas- 
ing the  facilities  of  distribution.  Shortly,  to  give  every  man 
what  he  produces. 

The  only  way  to  effect  this  is  by  the  abolition  of  the  com- 
petitive wage  system,  which  makes  men  starve  because  they 
produce  in  abundance,  and  the  substitution  of  the  co-opera- 
tive system  which  will  allow  them  to  get  what  they  produce. 
However,  in  order  to .  have  co-opexation  in  distribution,  we 
must  first  have  the  public  ownership  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction. 

We  must  have  governmental  oAvnership  of  the  railways, 
coal  mines,  oil  refineries,  etc. 

We  can  grow  the  wheat  and  grind  the  flour  and  bake  the 
bread  in  plenty  for  all,  but  we  have  not  yet  learned  the 
lesson  of  how  to  get  the  bread  after  we  bake  it.  The  reason 
why  we  don't  get  the  bread  is  because  we  don't  own  the 
fields  that  grow  the  wheat,  the  mills  that  grind  the  flour,  and 
the  bakeries  that  bake  the  bread. 

You  never  hear  of  a  rich  man  starving  or  freezing.   Why? 


310  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Simply  because  he  owns  the  machinery  that  produces  what 
he  wants.  If  you  own  a  coal  mine  you  will  never  freeze  for 
the  want  of  coal. 

However,  man  wants  more  than  coal.  He  wants  more 
than  bread.  He,  therefore,  must  own  more  than  a  coal  mine 
and  a  bake  oven.  He  must  own  all  the  machinery  of  pro- 
duction if  he  wishes  to  enjoy  all  the  fruits  of  the  earth.  He 
must  own  the  land,  the  railways,  the  wheat  fields,  the  coal 
mines,  the  great  flour  mills,  the  sugar  refineries;  in  fact,  all 
that  is  necessary  to  produce  what  he  wants.  He  must  own 
the  trusts. 

When  he  owns  all  these  things,  all  this  wealth,  he  will 
certainly  be  freed  from  the  dread  of  poverty,  and  particu- 
larly from  the  fear  of  starving  because  of  his  producing  too 
much  to  eat. 

Now,  to  own  all  these  great  machines,  the  railways  and 
the  coal  mines,  etc.,  we  must  abolish  the  individual  owner- 
ship of  this  wealth  by  Morgan  &  Co. 

It  would  do  no  good  to  divide  up  Morgan's  railways  among 
us.  We  could  not  give  every  man  a  spike,  or  a  rail,  or  a  car- 
wheel,  or  a  brick  out  of  a  railway  depot  and  effect  an  equal- 
ity ownership  of  railways  by  any  such  absurd  method.  The 
railway  systems  must  be  kept  intact  as  a  great  organization 
of  industry,  but  instead  of  letting  them  remain  in  Morgan's 
ownership,  we  must  place  them  in  Uncle  Sam's  ownership. 
We  must  own  them  ourselves  instead  of  Morgan. 

We  must  have  governmental  ownership  of  the  railways, 
just  as  we  have  governmental  ownership  of  the  post  office  and 
the  city  ownership  of  public  schools  and  public  parks. 

This  is  the  Socialist  solution  of  the  problem  of  "How  to 
Abolish  Poverty." 

Let  the  American  people  own  America  instead  of  letting 
Morgan  own  America. 

"Let  the  Nation  Oicn  the  Trusts." 

Let  the  products  of  industry  be  distributed  to  the  pro- 
ducers upon  the  basis  of  what  they  produce,  under  a  co-op- 
erative plan,  instead  of  under  the  present  competitive  plan, 
which  forces  the  workers  to  accept  wages  that  merely  allow 
them  the  very  least  they  can  subsist  upon. 

If  you  wish  to  own  your  country  and  get  what  you  pro- 
duce, you  have  only  to  say  so  in  order  to  realize  your  wish. 


To  Voters  of  10th  Congressional  Dist.,  N.  Y.     311 

The  way  to  say  so  is  by  voting  for  the  Social  Democratic 
Party.  That  is  the  party  which  stands  for  the  public  own- 
ership of  the  United  States  by  the  people,  instead  of  the 
present  private  ownership  by  Morgan  &  Co. 

If  you  vote  for  the  Republican  party  or  for  the  Democratic 
party  you  are  simply  declaring  that  you  prefer  Morgan,  Van- 
derbilt,  Gould  &  Company  owning  the  country  rather  than 
own  it  yourself. 

You  vote  to  perpetuate  poverty. 

If  you  wish  to  abolish  poverty,  the  way  for  you  to  say  so 
is  by  voting  the  Social  Democratic  ticket. 

It  is  true  that  the  Democratic  party  is  now  advocating 
the  government  ownership  of  coal  mines.  It  is  taking  up 
an  issue  that  the  Social  Democratic  Party  has  been  advocat- 
ing for  the  last  twenty  years.  It  is  a  good  issue,  too;  that 
is,  as  far  as  it  goes;  but  it  really  don't  go  very  far.  Man 
wants  coal,  and  he  should  own  the  mines  from  whence  it  is 
dug  if  he  wishes  to  be  sure  of  getting  it,  but  coal  is  not 
everything  in  life. 

Man  wants  other  things  than  coal.  He  wants  bread;  he 
wants  meat.  Why,  if  it  is  right  that  the  Government  should 
own  the  Coal  Trust,  is  it  not  right  that  the  Government 
should  own  the  Flour  Trust  and  the  Beef  Trust? 

The  Democrats  promise  you  a  hod  of  coal,  the  Republic- 
ans promise  you  a  tin  bucket  of  cold  victuals,  the  Socialist 
promises  you  all  the  wealth  of  the  earth.  It  is  for  you  to 
make  the  choice.    Let  men  have  all  the  fruits  of  the  earth. 

While  the  Social  Democratic  Party  emphasizes  principles 
rather  than  men,  yet  we  recognize  that  the  electors  should 
have  some  assurance  that  the  candidate  will  faithfully  en- 
deavor to  carry  out  the  platform  upon  which  he  is  elected. 

I  may  say,  that  in  soliciting  the  suffrages  of  the  voters  of 
the  Tenth  District  of  New  York,  to  be  returned  to  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States,  that  I  have  a  consistent  record  in 
the  advocacy  of  Socialism  for  the  last  fifteen  years. 

Let  your  souls  have  bodies  fit  to  inhabit. 

This  is  my  programme,  and  if  you  wish  it  carried  out,  then 
vote  for  Wilshire. 

Twelve  years  ago  I  was  nominated  by  the  Socialists  for 
Congress  in  California.  Eleven  years  ago  I  made  Socialist 
speeches  in  this  very  Tenth  District  of  New  York,  when  a 


312  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Socialist  candidate  for  Attorney-General  of  the  State  of 
New  York.  Since  then  I  have  been  a  candidate  for  office  a 
number  of  times,  and  always  as  the  regular  Socialist 
nominee. 

I  formerly  published  a  magazine  in  New  York,  known  as 
Wilshire's  Magazine,  but  as  it  has  been  denied  publishers' 
rates  by  the  United  States  Post-Office,  owing  to  its  advo- 
cacy of  Socialism,  I  have  been  forced  to  take  it  to  Canada 
to  print,  in  order  to  continue  its  publication.  It  seems  to 
me,  that  with  such  a  record,  no  voter  can  have  the  excuse 
that  he  believes  in  Socialism,  but  is  not  sure  that  I  will  carry 
out  its  mandates  if  I  am  elected. 

I  can  only  ask  you  to  take  a  chance  upon  voting  for  what 
you  want,  even  if  you  don't  get  it,  rather  than  voting  for 
poverty,  and  being  sure  of  getting  it. 

Faithfully  yours, 

H.  Gaylord  Wilshire, 

Social  Democratic  Candidate  for  Congress,  Tenth  District, 
New  York. 

Note.— When  this  was  written,  the  Socialist  Party  in  New  York  State  was 
legally  known  as  the  "Social  Democratic  Party." 


ROCKEFELLER  INCOGNITO.  313 


ROCKEFELLER  INCOGNITO 

IN  the  course  of  the  injunction  proceedings  against  the  issue 
of  bonds  to  supersede  the  preferred  stock  of  the  U.  S. 
Steel  Co.,  it  came  to  light  that  a  certain  hitherto  un- 
known man,  a  Bertram  Cutler,  held  over  twelve  million  dollars 
worth  of  steel  stock.  There  was  great  curiosity  for  a  while 
to  determine  who  this  unknown  millionaire  might  be.  The 
N.  Y.  Journal  soon  discovered,  in  its  mind,  that  Bertram 
Cutler  was  none  other  than  another  name  for  Andrew  Car- 
negie. It  then  proceeded  to  get  up  a  scare-head  story  of  a 
big  fight  brewing  between  the  Carnegie  and  Morgan  interests 
in  the  Steel  Trust  which,  was  about  to  cause  the  said  trust 
to  be  split  in  twain.  It  was  a  good  enough  story,  but  it  only 
lasted  one  day,  for  the  next  morning  it  had  to  acknowledge 
that  Bertram  Cutler  was  simply  a  young  clerk  in  the  em- 
ploy of  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller,  and  that  the  stock  in  ques- 
tion belonged  to  John  D.,  but  was  placed  in  the  name  of 
Cutler  for  unknown  reasons. 

The  incident  points  out  the  ease  with  which  the  holdings 
of  the  wealth  of  the  country  can  be  kept  in  anonymous 
hands.  I  do  not  question  at  all  but  that  very  much  more  of 
the  wealth  now  owned  by  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller  is  cov- 
ered up  in  many  unexpected  places.  I  feel  confident  that 
sooner  or  later  it  will  be  discovered  that  it  is  the  wealth  of 
Rockefeller  which  is  back  of  Mr.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan  in  all 
his  gigantic  deals. 

This  game  of  pretending  the  Morgan  and  Rockefeller  in- 
terests to  be  at  odds  is  simply  a  fake.  The  two  great  banks 
in  New  York,  one  ostensibly  controlled  by  Morgan  and  the 
other  by  Rockefeller,  are  simply  parts  of  the  stage  para- 
phernalia used  to  delude  the  public  into  thinking  that  there 
still  exists  some  competition  among  the  great  financiers. 

Mr.  Rockefeller  is  to-day  the  most  powerful  man  in  the 
world  because  he  is  the  richest.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan  is  sim- 
ply his  agent.  Rockefeller  is  the  substance,  Morgan  the 
shadow.    Rockefeller  is  a  man  with  absolutely  no  ambition 


314  Wilshire   Editorials. 

for  mere  ostentatious  display.  To  him  it  is  a  matter  of  no 
moment  whether  the  great  Colossus  Morgan  borrows  his 
insignia  of  power  or  whether  it  be  the  unknown  type-writer, 
Bertram  Cutler. 

Morgan,  of  course,  is  an  immensely  rich  man  in  his  own 
right,  but  his  wealth  is  insignificant  compared  with  that  of 
Rockefeller,  and  without  Rockefeller  at  his  back  he  would 
have  never  been  able  to  have  entered  upon  his  conquest  of 
the  world.  He  not  only  would  have  been  unable  but  would 
not  have  dared  to  have  even  contemplated  such  a  thing. 
With  Rockefeller  at  his  back  he  can  defy  the  world.  Not 
only  has  he  Rockefeller's  wealth,  but  what  is  almost  as  val- 
uable, he  has  Rockefeller's  advice. 

A  New  York  writer  on  financial  affairs  says  it  has  been 
made  plain  that  J.  Pierpont  Morgan's  real  intention  is  to 
girdle  the  globe  and  capture  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world. 
All  he  needs,  he  says,  is  the  Russian  trans-Siberian  road. 

Morgan  is  planning  to  build  railways  in  China,  He  has 
asked  China  for  a  permit.  Last  week  he  secured  the  trans- 
Atlantic  steamers.  This  week  he  was  after  the  South  Amer- 
ican ships  and  railways. 

What  next  he  will  do  no  man  knows. 

Almost  every  kind  of  man  who  labors  works  for  Morgan 
through  some  of  his  companies.  Rudyard  Kipling,  Lew 
Wallace — all  of  the  geniuses  who  in  fine  frenzy  dash  off 
poetry  and  write  stories  for  Harper's  are  working  for  Mor- 
gan. The  patient  scientists  are  digging  out  minute  facts  for 
Morgan  to  scatter  to  the  world.  The  artist  with  pencil  and 
brush  draws  and  paints,  and  Morgan  pays  him. 

So  absolute  has  he  become  that  while  he  is  personally 
worth  perhaps  not  more  than  $100,000,000,  corporations 
over  which  he  has  control  possess  more  wealth  than  there  is 
gold  on  earth. 

The  total  capitalization  of  all  the  companies  he  controls  is 
$5,210,993,386 — and  all  the  gold,  coined  and  uncoined,  in  all 
the  nations,  including  the  populous  East,  is  estimated  at 
$4,841,000,000. 

There  are  in  the  whole  known  world  about  1,320,000,000 
human  beings.    Morgan  controls  enough  to  give  each  $4.00. 

More  than  a  million  are  employed  by  the  companies  Mor- 
gan controls.     This  means  that  5,000,000  men,  women  and 


ROCKEFELLER  INCOGNITO.  315 

children  axe  dependent  on  him  for  a  living — or  rather  that 
5,000,000  persons  contribute  to  his  comfort. 

Three  hundred  of  the  largest  steamships  in  the  world  and 
30,000  of  the  best  equipped  passenger  and  freight  trains 
take  orders  from  them. 

Fourteen  steamship  lines  and  forty-four  railroad  systems 
belong  to  them. 

On  land  a  mileage  of  108,500  and  on  sea  a  tonnage  of 
1,200,000  are  in  their  control. 

This  railway  mileage  is  greater  than  the  combined  mileage 
of  Russia,  Great  Britain,  Germany,  Holland,  Spain  and  Bel- 
gium. And  more  than  three  hundred  vessels  which  will  sail 
under  its  orders  cannot  be  duplicated  from  the  merchant  ma- 
rine of  every  ocean. 

A  world-wide  transportation  trust  has  long  been  Morgan's 
dream.  English  newspapers  are  making  comically  pitiful 
pleas  to  Morgan  to  let  England  come  into  the  new  trust. 
The  fact  that  Morgan  is  addressed  in  tones  of  supplication 
shows  that  he  is  absolute  master. 

Not  Alexander,  in  all  his  glory;  not  Caesar  Augustus,  not 
even  Napoleon,  with  all  his  mighty  armies,  was  such  a  con- 
queror as  J.  P.  Morgan  with  his  little  "yes"  and  "no"  that 
makes  or  unmakes. 

No  king  is  one-tenth  so  powerful  as  Morgan.  Edward 
VII.,  Emperor  William,  Nicolas  of  Russia — any  one  of  these 
is  a  pigmy  in  real  power  compared  with  Morgan. 

Continuing  he  declares,  that  Morgan  and  six  other  Amer- 
ican citizens  have  now  become  more  powerful  than  all  the 
Congresses  and  Parliaments  in  the  world. 

All  this  is  true  enough,  only  Rockefeller's,  name  should 
be  substituted  for  that  of  Morgan. 

Mr.  Duke,  the  president  of  the  American  Tobacco  Co.,  is 
another  man  who  owes  his  strength,  I  have  no  doubt,  to  Mr. 
Rockefeller.  The  campaign  that  the  American  Tobacco 
Trust  is  now  carrying  on  throughout  the  world  requires  a 
colossal  sum  of  money,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  earnings  of 
the  Trust  itself  are  not  affording  the  money  that  is  being 
spent  like  water. 

Another  man  whom  I  believe  is  working  in  the  interests 
of  Rockefeller  is  the  Mr.  Morse,  who  every  day  or  so  buys 
up  a  new  bank.     Mr.  Morse,  while  admittedly  a  rich  man, 


316  Wilshire   Editorials. 

has  neither  the  money  nor  the  motive  to  acquire  the  im- 
mense chain  of  banks  which  he  is  gathering  under  one  con- 
trol. In  my  mind  he  is  working  for  Mr.  Eockefeller,  and 
sooner  or  later  the  Morse  banks  will  fall  into  the  ownership 
of  the  great  City  National  Bank  of  New  York,  of  which 
Eockefeller  is  the  principal  owner.  This  move  is  preliminary 
to  the  establishment  of  a  great  central  United  States  Bank, 
with  headquarters  in  New  York  and  branches  in  every  city 
of  the  Union,  as  well  as  in  the  greater  cities  of  Europe.  The 
Fowler  Bill,  which  is  now  before  Congress,  is  a  sign  of  what 
is  coming.  At  present  National  Banks  are  not  allowed  to 
have  branches,  so  the  only  way  for  them  to  attain  the  ad- 
vantages of  branches  is  to  own  stock  in  the  banks  in  the 
smaller  towns.  The  small  banks  are  then  legally  separate 
entities,  but  are  in  reality  simply  branches  of  the  central 
bank,  their  own.  The  Fowler  Bill  simply  aims  to  legalize 
actions  that  are  already  of  every-day  occurrence.  The  small 
bankers  all  over  the  country  are  up  in  arms  against  the  bill, 
as  they  see  its  enactment  means  so  much  the  quicker  a  finish 
for  them.  However,  they  are  fighting  against  the  current, 
and  they  might  as  well  accept  the  inevitable  now  as  later. 
Concentration  is  the  order  of  the  day,  and  the  small  banker 
must  go  as  well  as  the  small  manufacturer. 


The  Mysterious  Me.  Heaest.  317 


THE  MYSTERIOUS  MR.  HEARST 

ME.  HEARST  is  more  or  less  a  mystery  to  certain  ad- 
vanced thinkers.  They  see  him  publishing  a  great 
paper,  with  an  enormous  circulation,  and  with  a 
policy  which  is,  on  the  whole,  very  Socialistic,  and  whose 
editorials  are  the  strongest  to  be  found  in  any  American 
daily,  and  yet  they  are  always  prepared  for  the  most  glaring 
inconsistency  on  his  part  at  any  moment.  For  instance, 
one  day  they  find  him  showing  up  the  absolute  impossibility 
of  doing  anything  in  the  way  of  destroying  the  Trust,  be- 
cause the  Trust  represents  the  natural  evolution  of  indus- 
try, and  the  next  day  he  comes  out  with  an  editorial  declaring 
for  the  destruction  of  so-called  Criminal  Trusts,  whereas  by 
his  own  analysis  he  has  shown  that  the  Trust  cannot  be 
criminal,  because  it  is  simply  a  creation  of  natural  law. 
Again,  he  will  show  the  impossibility  of  one's  obtaining  jus- 
tice under  the  existing  competitive  system,  when  the  ma- 
chinery of  production  is  owned  by  a  few  great  monopolists, 
and  then  he  follows  with  an  editorial  to  the  effect  that  all  one 
has  to  do  in  order  to  get  along,  is  to  attend  strictly  to  the 
employment  in  which  God  has  seen  fit  to  place  him  in  this 
world.  Later  on,  he  will  have  an  editorial  showing  that  all 
the  poverty  on  this  earth  is  not  traceable  to  the  monopoly 
of  the  earth  by  the  Vanderbilts*  and  the  Bockef  ellers,  but  to 
the  drinking  of  whiskey  by  the  workingmen;  and  then,  to  cap 
the  climax,  if  more  were  needed  to  confuse  people  as  to  his 
sincerity,  he  keeps  on  putting  before  the  public  in  a  delicate 
manner,  by  quoting  from  other  papers,  the  great  desirability 
of  Mr.  Hearst  being  elected  President  of  the  United  States. 
It  seems  to  me  that  from  his  own  standpoint,  and  from 
whatever  way  we  may  look  at  it,  this  last  stroke  is  the  worst 
possible  policy.  I  can  conceive  how,  in  order  to  keep  all 
classes  of  readers  and  hold  his  advertisers,  he  must  give  all 
sorts  of  views  as  to  what  should  be  done,  and  advocate  tem- 
perance, the  destruction  of  Trusts,  national  ownership  of 
Trusts,  Tariff  Eeform,  and  everything  else  which  will  bring 


318  Wilshire   Editorials. 

fish  into  his  net,  but  when  he  utilizes  his  paper  to  boom 
himself  for  the  Presidency,  he  immediately  makes  a  large 
number  of  people  feel  that  after  all  he  does  not  mean  any- 
thing he  says,  but  simply  says  his  say  in  order  to  place  him- 
self in  the  Presidential  chair. 

My  own  theory  regarding  Mr.  Hearst  is  a  very  simple  one. 
He  is  following  an  irresistible  law  of  his  nature  to  bring 
about  harmony  in  the  universe,  but.  he  is  ignorant  as  to  how 
to  do  it.  He  is  also  following  an  irresistible  law  which 
forces  him  to  take  care  of  his  own  individuality,  and  the  re- 
sult of  his  ignorance  of  economic  laws  on  the  one  hand, 
together  with  his  extreme  egotism  on  the  other,  has  the 
effect  of  making  many  people  misunderstand  him. 


Classes  in  America.  319 


CLASSES  IN  AMERICA 

WE  Americans  have  a  great  advantage  over  other 
nations  in  our  unconsciousness  of  classes.  That 
we  have  rich  and  poor  is  not  denied,  but  that  we 
have  classes  and  class  feeling  is  almost  as  vigorously  denied 
by  the  poor  as  by  the  rich.  And  this  denial  of  the  palpable 
has  an  effect  upon  the  social  consciousness  that  it  is  hard  to 
over-estimate. 

In  Europe  classes  are  a  recognized  institution.  The 
peasant  never  thinks  that  he  is  anything  but  a  peasant,  nor 
does  the  nobleman  ever  think  he  is  anything  but  a  noble- 
man. Even  the  very  rich  capitalist  feels  that  he  is  hardly 
as  good  as  the  poor  aristocrat. 

In  America.,  while  differences  in  wealth  have  really  made 
very  distinct  class  cleavages,  we  refuse  to  recognize  this  con- 
dition; and  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  refusal  will  sooner 
or  later  have  a  considerable  political  effect.  We  deny  that 
Mr.  Rockefeller's  money  was  ever  given  to  him  except  for 
the  benefit  of  the  whole  people,  and  we  have  been  insisting 
that  the  wealth  of  such  men  would  be.  distributed  by  nat- 
ural laws  in  the  course  of  time,  and  the  sons  of  other  men 
would  be  quite  as  liable  to  own  Rockefeller's  wealth  as  his 
own  descendants.  This,  indeed,  is  the  stock  argument  of 
almost  all  opponents  of  Socialism.  They  insist  that  while 
there  is  great  wealth  in  a  few  hands,  this  is  simply  an  ephem- 
eral condition  of  affairs,  and  that  no  one  family  will  hold 
great  wealth  any  length  of  time.  So  long  as  people  gen- 
erally believe  this,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why  it  is 
they  refuse  to  consider  any  change  of  society  which  would 
aim  at  preventing  the  concentration  of  wealth,  feeling,  as 
they  do,  that  it  will  regulate  itself  automatically.  How- 
ever, we  are  now  realizing  that  this  concentration  of  wealth, 
and  the  holding  of  the  natural  resources  of  the  country  by  a 
few  immensely  rich  families,  not  only  gives  no-  sign  of  being 
an  ephemeral  state  of  affairs,  but  has  every  indication  of 
being  a  permanency.    Every  year  the  very  rich  are  becoming 


320  Wilshiee   Editorials. 

more  and  more  strongly  intrenched  behind  their  ramparts  of 
gold,  and  the  public  are  generally  recognizing  that  under 
our  existing  social  system  there  is  no  possible  remedy  for  the 
inequality  of  wealth.  It  is  true  we  have  anti-Trust  bills 
galore  introduced  in  our  Houses  of  Congress,  having  for 
their  object  the  levelling  of  the  great  fortunes,  but  these 
bills  are  felt  by  every  one  to  be  of  no  possible  avail  in  that 
direction.  Concentration  of  wealth  is  an  inevitable  result  of 
our  economic  system,  and  we  can  no  more  make  effective 
laws  to  prevent  it  than  we  can  make  laws  to  prevent 
the  sun  shining.  However,  the  introduction  of  these  anti- 
Trust  bills  year  after  year  in  our  Congress  indicates 
strongly  the  wish  of  the  people  to  level  wealth  and 
to  abolish  conditions  which  make  classes.  They  are  also  a 
very  reluctant  confession  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a 
class  cleavage  in  the  United  States.  Our  sentiments  are  too 
strongly  democratic  to  allow  any  classes  to  remain  if  we  can 
possibly  prevent  it,  because  we  are  fundamentally  opposed 
to  classes,  and  to  this  extent  Socialism,  which  aims  to  abolish 
classes,  will  have  a  spiritual  significance  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  which  it  has  not  in  European  countries  where 
aristocracy  is  a  recognized  institution.  There  has  never 
been  a  nation  of  free  people,  such  as  we  Americans  are, 
resolving  year  after  year  that  they  wished  to  do  a  certain 
thing,  and  having  every  reason  to  get  their  wish,  and  also 
having  every  means  for  carrying  it  into  effect,  but  what 
finally  succeeded  in  their  desires.  While  we  scoff  at  the 
anti-Trust  laws  as  being  ridiculous,  yet  we  can  see  behind 
them  the  determination  of  the  people  to  accomplish  the  es- 
tablishment of  an  economic  equality  among  the  people  of 
this  country.  One  hundred  years  or  more  ago,  in  colonial 
days,  and  before  we  separated  from  England,  there  was  a 
long  period  of  time  in  which  we  kept  on  passing  resolutions 
and  having  meetings,  and  even  having  physical  encounters 
with  her.  It  was  with  the  greatest  reluctance  we  ever  finally 
considered  the  possibility  of  separation  from  the  mother 
country.  In  fact,  it  was  once  considered  rank  treason  to 
refer  to  independence  as  an  ultimate  outcome  of  the  agita- 
tion against  England's  tyranny.  We  expected  to  make  some 
sort  of  a  compromise  by  which  we  would  still  remain  colonies 
and  yet  participate  in  all  the  advantages  of  an  independent 


Classes  in  America.  321 

country.  It  is  the  same  to-day.  We  expect  to  allow  the 
Rockefellers  and  Morgans  to  own  us,  and  yet  we  expect  to 
have  all  the  luxuries  of  complete  independence  which  can 
only  accompany  self-ownership.  It  will  finally  be  found 
to  be  just  as  impossible  for  us  to  remain  free  and  independ- 
ent under  King  Morgan  as  it  was  for  us  to  remain  free  and 
independent  under  King  George.  In  fact,  theoretically,  as 
has  been  proven  by  the  English  colonies — Canada  and  Aus- 
tralia, New  Zealand,  etc. — it  would  have  been  much  more 
possible  for  us  to  remain  under  King  George  than  it  will 
be  for  us  to  remain  under  King  Morgan.  King  George  did 
not  need  to  have  been  even  a  benevolent  despot  to  have 
kept  the  American  colonies;  he  needed  but  to  have  been 
sane.  King  Morgan,  with  all  his  benevolence,  can  never 
keep  his  American  colonies,  simply  because  the  economic 
system  will  prevent  him  from  devising  a  plan  which  can 
avert  the  great  unemployed  problem.  He  cannot  feed  us. 
Under  King  George  the  economic  problem  was  how  we 
could  produce  enough  to  give  us  the  luxuries  and  comforts 
of  life.  Under  King  Morgan  the  problem  is: — How  can  we 
prevent  ourselves  producing  too  much?  Our  fear  is  that  we 
will  be  swamped  in  a  rising  sea  of  wealth. 

What  we  must  do  is  not  to  try  and  prevent  the  sea  of 
wealth  from  rising,  but  to  construct  the  bark  of  Socialism 
which  wall  float  us  safely  upon  it,  so  that  instead  of  wealth 
being  a  menace  to  us  we  will  be  borne  forward  upon  it  to  the 
Golden  Age  of  Man. 


322  'Wilshiee   Editorials. 


THE  SIPPERS  OF  CARLSBAD 

TOO  much  eating  and  too  little  exercise  does  not  fall  to 
the  lot  of  everyone  in  Austria.  The  standard  of  wages 
is  not  conducive  to  the  laying  up  of  too  much  adipose 
tissue  on  the  bones  of  the  ordinary  laborer,  nor  has  he  such 
short  hours  of  work  that  he  fails  to  get  enough  daily  exercise. 
However  true  all  this  may  be,  there  are,  out  of  the  forty 
million  population  of  the  Austrian  Empire,  a  good  many 
thousands  of  people  who  are  unlucky  enough  not  to  belong 
to  the  wage-earning  class;  consequently  many  of  them  are 
forced  to  seek  an  alternative  to  hard  work  and  plain  living  in 
taking  "die  Kur"  at  Carlsbad. 

There  are  about  fifty  thousand  visitors  to  the  springs  an- 
nually. While  all  the  world  contributes,  the  great  bulk  of  the 
visitors — four  fifths — are  Germans  and  Austrians.  There  are 
about  one  thousand  Englishmen  and  a  little  over  two  thousand 
Americans.  The  season  opens  in  May,  is  at  its  height  about 
the  20th  of  July,  when  12,000  are  here,  and  closes  in  Octo- 
ber. The  water  is  just  as  good  in  winter  and  quite  as  hot, 
for  the  Sprudel  spring  has  a  constant  temperature  of  163 
degrees  Fahrenheit,  but  man  does  not  live  by  bread  alone 
and  neither  is  he  cured  by  Carlsbad  water  alone. 

How  much  of  the  cure  comes  from  the  water  and  how  much 
from  the  regimen  will  ever  remain  a  vexed  question. 

Shortly,  the  cure  consists  in  getting  up  at  six  in  the  morn- 
ing, walking  down  to  one  of  the  various  springs,  where  the 
water  gushes  out,  dipping  up  a  cup  of  water,  and  slowly 
drinking  it  by  sips,  until  four  or  five  cups  are  swallowed. 
This  should  take  say  half  an  hour,  during  which  you  are 
parading  up  and  down  a  fine  covered  colonnade,  with  thou- 
sands of  other  drinkers,  each  holding  his  cup  in  hand,  and 
taking  an  occasional  sip.  Meanwhile,  the  City  of  Carlsbad 
Band  plays  most  delightful  music  every  morning  for  you 
and  the  other  peripatetic  sippers. 

When  the  water  is  all  down  you  take  a  walk  for  one  hour 
and  then  have  a  light  breakfast,  no  sweets  and  no  coffee.    At 


The  Sippers  of  Carlsbad.  323 

two  you  dine,  then  take  another  walk  and  at  seven  you  sup 
lightly,  and  after  another  walk  you  go  to  bed.  The  water  is 
only  taken  once  a  day,  in  the  morning. 

The  cure  takes  at  least  four  weeks  and  preferably  six. 

Carlsbad  is  in  itself  a  delightful  resort,  beautiful  shady 
walks  and  excellent  hotels,  with  accommodations  suited  to  all 
kinds  of  purses.  For  while  the  rich  are  much  in  evidence, 
it  would  be  unfair  not  to  state  that  at  least  half,  if  not  more, 
are  invalids  who  are  far  from  rich.  In  fact,  it  is  quite  prob- 
able that  poor  food  and  over-work  have  driven  just  as  many 
to  Carlsbad  as  have  rich  food  and  no  work.  Indeed,  the  trou- 
ble with  modern  life  is  that  it  is  all  extremes  and  no  middle. 
A  man  is  ill  either  from  too  much  work  or  from  too  little 
work. 

Carlsbad  is  a  good  example  of  the  possibilities  of  municipal 
Socialism.  The  city  owns  the  springs,  the  gas  and  electric 
lights,  the  magnificent  bath  house,  and  one  of  the  most  beauti- 
ful and  best  arranged  theatres  in  the  world. 

But  the  wages  paid  employees  by  the  city  are  no  better  nor 
are  the  hours  any  shorter  than  with  private  employers. 

Going  through  Belgium,  I  asked  the  guard  upon  the  Bel- 
gium National  Railway  about  his  wages,  etc.  He  said  he  was 
now  getting  $216  a  year,  that  he  had  started  in  at  $180  a 
year ;  that  at  the  end  of  forty  years  service  he  would  be  getting 
$510  a  year,  and  then  he  could  retire  upon  a  pension  of  $360 
a  year. 

He  paid  $12  for  his  uniform,  which  lasted  two  years. 
Board  and  lodging  cost  him  $11  per  month. 

He  was  liable  to  13  hours  work  a  day,  7  days  in  the  week, 
but  said  that  the  actual  hours  of  work  did  not  average  over 
10  a  day. 

He  was  quite  an  intelligent  young  fellow  of  twenty-three, 
and  seemed  quite  content ;  so  much  so  that  he  was  not  a  So- 
cialist and  took  no  interest  in  the  subject. 


;324  Wilshire   Editorials. 


THE  SEQUEL  TO  A  MODERN  ROMANCE 

COMING  from  Venice  to  Vienna,  after  a  few  days  in 
the  Austrian  Tyrol,  I  had  two  delightful  days  in 
Munich  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Serge  von  Sheviteh. 

Fourteen  years  ago,  and  for  the  ten  preceding  years,  She- 
vitch, although  a  Russian  by  birth,  was  the  leader  of,  and 
the  greatest  man  in,  the  American  Socialist  movement,  and 
thereby  hangs  our  tale. 

The  year  1877  first  saw  him  in  the  United  States, 
a  Eussian  nobleman,  a  tall,  handsome  young  fellow  of 
twenty-nine.  With  him  was  his  bride,  the  world-famous 
beauty,  Princess  Racowitz,  the  widow  of  the  Roumanian 
Prince  Racowitz,  the  woman  with  whom  the  great  Ferdinand 
Lasalle  had  been  so  passionately  in  love  and  on  whose  ac- 
count he  lost  his  life  in  the  historic  duel. 

I  will  not  go  over  in  detail  the  story  of  that  bit  of  ro- 
mance in  the  development  of  Socialism.  It  has  already 
been  too  fully  exploited  to  bear  tedious  repetition.  Shortly, 
I  may  narrate,  for  the  benefit  of  the  few  who  may  be  un- 
familiar with  the  tale,  that  some  forty  years  ago  a  young 
German,  Ferdinand  Lasalle,  the  most  gifted  man  of  his 
time,  as  philosopher,  orator  and  politician,  organized  a  great 
working-class  party  in  Germany,  the  progenitor  of  the  ex- 
isting powerful  German  Socialist  Party. 

Lasalle's  influence  became  such  that  even  the  great  Bis- 
marck, then  at  the  height  of  his  power,  became  terrified  and 
made  him  all  sorts  of  most  tempting  offers  of  alliance. 

In  the  period  of  his  political  activity,  Lasalle  met  and  at 
sight  fell  violently  in  love  with  the  brilliant  and  beautiful 
daughter  of  Count  Von  Donniges,  a  distinguished  member 
of  the  old  German  nobility,  and  Secretary  of  State  for  Ba- 
varia. His  love  was  returned,  with  nothing  lost  in  wear  and 
tear  by  the  transfer.  It  looked  as  if  the  world's  dream  of  the 
union  of  her  greatest  man  to  her  most  beautiful  woman,  was 
at  last,  at  the  end  of  the  ages,  to  be  realized.  The  lady's 
practical  and   aristocratic  father,  however,   dreamed  differ- 


The  Sequel  to  a  Modern  Romance.  325 

ently  and  less  romantically.  A  title  and  wealth  were  in  his 
dream,  and  he  saw  them  in  material  shape  realized  in  the 
person  of  Prince  Racowitz,  who  had  long  been  a  persistent, 
but  hitherto  unsuccessful,  suitor  for  his  fair  daughter's 
heart  and  hand.  The  father  would  not  listen  to  the  idea 
of  having  a  mere  Socialist  agitator  for  a  son-in-law,  when  a 
Prince  could  be  had  for  the  word. 

Before  1870  a  father's  power  over  a  daughter  in  Europe, 
and  especially  in  Germany,  was  greater  than  nowadays.  His 
answer  to  Lasalle's  demands  and  his  daughter's  lamenta- 
tions was  the  practical  incarceration  of  the  obdurate  maiden 
in  the  old  ancestral  castle. 

One  night,  after  many  days  of  durance  vile,  she  eluded 
the  guard  and  escaped.  Lasalle  was  in  Switzerland.  She 
flew  to  him  and  proposed  immediate  marriage,  but  Lasalle's 
pride  had  been  wounded  by  the  attitude  taken  by  her  father, 
and  he  said,  "No,  go  back  to  the  castle.  I  will  not  take  you 
by  stealth.  I  will  force  him  to  give  you  to  me  regularly  and 
conventionally  as  a  matter  of  justice  and  right."  Of  course, 
this  was  all  false  pride,  and  consciously  or  unconsciously 
must  have  dampened  the  lady's  ardor. 

A  man  doesn't  improve  his  position  with  his  lady-love 
by  bringing  in  the  question  of  his  pride.  When  the  lady 
had  braved  all  and  fled  to  him,  it  was  a  cruel  bit  of  weak- 
ness and  conceit  for  Lasalle  to  cast  her  back  to  her  father's 
hands  on  the  chance  that  he  could  force  his  consent. 

This  episode  naturally  enraged  the  old  father  more  than 
ever.  The  second  incarceration  of  his  daughter  was  much 
more  rigid  than  the  first.  His  remarks  regarding  Lasalle 
were  so  insulting  that  when  they  were  carried  to  Lasalle's 
ears  a  challenge  to  a  duel  was  the  reply. 

Then  the  Prince  Racowitz  steps  to  the  front  of  the  stage. 
The  father  is  too  old  and  feeble  to  fight.  Lasalle  is  re- 
nowned as  the  best  shot  and  best  swordsman  in  Germany. 
He,  the  Prince,  the  father's  choice  for  a  son-in-law,  is  a 
natural  substitute,  and  will  accept  the  challenge.  Lasalle 
consents  to  the  chansre.  As  the  challenger,  he  must  allow 
the  Prince  to  select  the  weapons.  The  Prince  says  pistols. 
Swords  would  have  been  certain  suicide  for  him. 

Pistols  were  bad  enough  with  such  a  shot  as  Lasalle,  but 
there  was  a  chance  in  a  thousand.     The  duel  came  off  and 


326  "Wilshire   Editorials. 

the  great  Lasalle  fell  mortally  wounded  at  the  first  exchange 
of  6hots.     The  Prince  was  untouched. 

Then  after  many  bitter  ■  days  with  her  old  father,  the 
lady's  spirit  was  conquered  and  she  consented  to  marry  the 
Prince.  After  another  two  years  the  Prince  died  and  she 
was  a  widow. 

And  this  is  where  all  the  other  narrators  of  this  "Ro- 
mance  of  the  Nineteenth  Century"  have  laid  down  their 
pens. 

I  will  now  give  the  Twentieth  Century  Sequel. 

Some  years  after  her  husband's  death  the  Princess  went 
to  Paris,  where  she  soon  became  a  center  of  attraction  ow- 
ing to  her  beauty,  grace  and  accomplishments,  and  above 
all,  to  her  romantic  history,  which  all  the  Parisian  world 
so  well  knew. 

Serge  von  Shevitch,  a  rich  young  Russian  nobleman,  was 
then  a  new  arrival  in  Paris,  the  handsomest  and  most  bril- 
liant one  of  all  the  jeunesse  doree.  A  few  years  form  the 
university  in  Russia,  where  he  and  Stepniak,  already  a  rev- 
olutionist, afterwards  well  known  as  a  Nihilist  and  who  re- 
cently was  killed  by  a  locomotive  in  England,  had  been 
classmates.  Shevitch  was  a  Socialist,  and  this  at  once  put 
him  on  a  good  footing  with  the  old  sweetheart  of  Lasalle. 
The  courtship  was  fast  and  furious.  The  United  States  was 
their  dream  of  Utopia.  Marriage  ensued,  and  New  York  be- 
came the  home  of  the  young  couple. 

The  Socialist  Party  of  America  was  then  in  its  infancy. 
The  Volkszeitung,  the  German  Socialist  daily  of  New  York, 
had  only  just  been  launched,  and  was  struggling  in  a  very 
stormy  sea.  An  editor  was  badly  needed.  The  appearance 
in  New  York  of  Shevitch  seemed  to  the  Socialists  as  a  gift 
sent  by  the  gods.  He  soon  became  not  only  the  life  of  the 
paper,  but  the  whole  Socialist  movement  in  New  York,  and 
New  York  spelled  America  for  Socialism  thirty  years  ago. 

A  brilliant  writer  and  eloquent  orator,  of  commanding 
personal  appearance,  equally  at  home  in  the  German  and 
English  languages,  Shevitch  was  indeed  a  gift  of  the  gods. 
From  1879  to  1890  he  was  editor  of  the  Volkszeitung.  Pos- 
sibly the  best  remembered  event,  of  which  he  was  the  hero, 
was  the  memorable  debate  in  Cooper  Union,  when  he  so 
completely  crushed  the  late  Henry  George,  the  great  single 


The  Sequel  to  a  Modern  Romance.  327 

taxer.  Mrs.  Shevitch,  like  her  husband,  became  a  figure  in 
New  York  and  is  still  remembered  by  the  many  American 
friends  she  gathered  about  her. 

In  1890  the  Shevitches  left  New  York  and  returned  to 
Russia,  much  to  the  consternation  and  sorrow  of  the  New 
York  Socialists.  However,  the  change  was  imperative.  She- 
vitch had  inherited  large  estates,  and  the  Russian  law  pro- 
vides that  if  an  owner  remains  absent  from  Russia  over  a 
certain  fixed  period  of  time,  the  estate  becomes  forfeited  to 
the  crown.  After  living  quietly  a  few  years  in  Russia  on  his 
estate,  just  sufficient  to  allow  him  to  dispose  to  advantage 
of  his  lands,  Shevitch  and  his  wife  removed  to  Munich, 
where  they  have  been  living  ever  since,  and  where  I  had 
the  pleasure  of  visiting  them  the  other  day.  Shevitch  is 
still  as  vigorous  and  handsome  as  ever.  He  is  now  fifty-five, 
and  Madam  Shevitch  possesses  all  the  old  charm  which  ren- 
dered her  so  irresistible  in  years  gone  by.  They  live  de- 
lightfully in  Munich — their  dinners  are  quite  the  best  I 
have  had  in  Europe — but  I  am  in  hopes  of  some  day  seeing 
them  back  again  in  America — if  not  permanently,  at  least 
for  a  long  visit. 

Shevitch  is  taking  little  or  no  part  in  the  active  move- 
ment at  present.  The  German  government  does  not  allow 
aliens  to  participate  in  German  politics,  and  as  they  have 
at  the  same  time  also  refused  him  naturalization  papers,  he 
is  quite  cut  off  from  active  participation  in  German  So- 
cialist politics. 

Shevitch  looks  forward  to  the  granting  of  a  constitution 
in  Russia  within  such  a  limited  number  of  years  that  he 
himself  will  be  able  to  return  to  his  native  land  and  take 
an  active  part  in  the  rapidly  growing  movement  for  So- 
cialism, now  gaining  such  headway  in  Russia. 

He  says  that  practically  all  the  educated  men  in  Russia, 
outside  of  the  bureaucracy,  are  in  favor  of  a  constitution, 
and  that  the  pressure  is  becoming  too  great  for  the  au- 
tocracy to  much  longer  successfully  resist. 

He  has  promised  to  write  up  for  Wilshire's  a  general 
review  of  the  Socialist  position  both  in  Germany  and  Russia, 
which,  I  am  sure,  our  readers  will  look  forward  to  with  the 
greatest  delight  and  interest. 


328  Wilshire    Editorials. 


MUNICH-A  PROPHECY  OF  THE  FUTURE 

1CAN  quite  understand  how  cosmopolites  like  the 
Shevitches,  speaking  all  languages  and  at  home  in  any 
intellectual  and  artistic  center,  should  have  settled  upon 
Munich  as  the  most  delightful  city  in  the  world  wherein  to 
pitch  their  tent.  It  is  the  most  uniformly  beautiful  city  in 
Europe.  There  may  be  slums,  but  they  are  not  in  evidence  to 
the  stranger. 

The  streets  are  wider  and  better  laid  out,  the  distribution 
of  the  public  buildings  and  parks  is  more  convenient  and 
effectual,  and  the  architecture  of  the  buildings,  both  public 
and  private,  in  better  taste  in  Munich  than  any  other  city  in 
Europe. 

The  sad  thing  of  it  all,  too,  is  the  reflection  that  one  must 
admit  that  nearly  all  of  this  beauty  and  convenience  is  the 
result  of  the  method  in  the  madness  of  the  late  King  Ludwig, 
who  recently  commited  suicide  while  in  an  insane  fit. 

A  city  can  only  be  beautiful  by  becoming  socially  conscious 
and  letting  this  social  consciousness  externalize  itself,  so  to 
speak.  To-day  the  European  cities  owe  nearly  all  their  su- 
periority in  beauty  over  our  American  cities  to  the  fact  that 
this  social  consciousness  was  able  to  translate  itself  into 
action  through  the  medium  of  an  autocrat,  such,  for  instance, 
as  Ludwig  was  here  in  Munich,  and  as  Napoleon  the  Third 
was  in  Paris. 

It  is  almost  impossible  for  what  we  call  "democracy"  to 
make  a  city  beautiful. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  democracy  that  we  have  in  our 
American  cities  anyway.  It  is  the  rule  of  the  private  corpo- 
rations through  the  medium  of  a  corrupt  political  machine. 
The  aim  of  the  private  corporations  is  to  make  as  much 
money  in  as  short  a  time  as  possible,  and  the  'best  argument  to 
get  them  to  allow  the  city  to  have  parks  or  other  municipal 
improvements,  is  to  urge  that  by  making  the  city  more  at- 
tractive you  will  draw  outside  capital  and  people  to  the  city. 


Munich — A  Prophecy  of  the  Future.  329 

More  people  will  make  their  town  lots  and  their  gas  and 
street-car  stock  more  valuable,  and  this  is  a  final  argument 
if  anything  at  all  will  convince. 

King  Ludwig  made  Munich  beautiful,  not  because  he  was 
looking  for  a  raise  in  his  kingly  salary,  or  because  he  wished 
to  increase  the  value  of  his  royal  palace,  but  because  he  had 
a  love  for  beauty  as  an  end  in  itself.  He  patronized  Richard 
Wagner  not  because  he  had  figured  out  that  he  was  going  to 
get  his  money  back  from  the  American  tourists  who  now 
flock  to  Munich  for  the  Wagner  operas,  but  because  he  loved 
beautiful  music. 

Let  us  be  fair  and  give  the  man  his  due,  even  though  he 
be  a  king  and  mad. 

In  addition  to  what  Ludwig  did  for  Munich,  God  himself 
also  did  one  or  two  things.  It  has  a  delightful  summer 
climate,  very  like  New  York  in  early  May.  It  is  true,  the 
winters  are  cold,  but  the  cold  is  not  the  raw,  biting  cold  of 
New  York. 

The  magnificent  river  Isar  springs  from  its  mountain 
gorge,  fed  by  eternal  glaciers,,  only  five  miles  from  the  city, 
and  with  its  rushing  current  flowing  through,  gives  perfect 
drainage  and  unlimited  possibilities  of  power  and  water  to 
Munich. 

I  doubt  if  any  city  in  the  world  of  its  size  (500,000)  has 
the  water  power  within  its  walls  that  Munich  possesses.  How- 
ever, with  the  exception  of  furnishing  power  for  the  electric 
cars  and  light,  it  is  not  as  yet  much  utilized.  Munich  is 
not  much  of  a  manufacturing  center  yet,  but  with  its  cheap 
water  power  and  its  cheap  labor  power,  for  wages  are  low  in 
Munich,  manufacturing  should  develop  there  rapidly.  The 
common,  ordinary,  everyday  laborer  gets  from  50  to  75  cents 
a  day.  I  asked  Shevitch  the  question  that  always  bothers  me : 
"How  does  the  European  laborer  getting  such  low  wages 
and  at  the  same  time  paying  such  high  prices  for  food,  still 
keep  himself  and  his  family  in  as  good,  if  not  better,  physical 
condition  than  the  American,  and  quite  as  well  dressed,  who, 
with  twice  or  three  times  the  wages,  has  practically  no 
margin  for  saving."  Shevitch  quite  agreed  with  me  as  to 
the  superior  appearance,  as  to  health,  of  the  European  laborer 
generally,  and  said  the  mystery  as  to  how  he  managed  it  all 
was  as  insoluble  to  him  as  to  me.    Rents  are  lower  in  Europe 


330  Wilshire    Editorials. 

and  that  goes  to  explain  where  part  of  the  American's  wages 
are  absorbed. 

The  street-car  system  of  Munich  is  about  to  be  taken  over 
by  the  municipality.  At  present  the  conductors  get  about 
$25  a  month  wages  for  a  ten-hour  day,  and  then  by  a  peculiar 
and  universal  system  of  tips  from  passengers,  they  get  about 
$20  a  month  in  addition  to  their  wages,  but  one-quarter  of 
this  is  by  custom  handed  over  to  the  motorman. 

There  is  a  very  general  impression  held  by  Americans 
who  have  not  lived  abroad,  that  living  for  the  average  middle- 
class  family  is  much  cheaper  in  Europe  than  in  the  United 
States.  This  is  all  a  mistake.  For  a  man  expending,  say 
$1,500  to  $2,500  a  year  on  his  family  and  taking  the  main 
comforts,  it  is  practically  the  same  thing,  Europe  and 
America.  The  American  who  saves  money  by  living  in 
Europe  does  so  by  living  in  worse  style  than  he  would  live 
at  home.  One  may  save  a  little  in  rent,  servant  hire  and 
clothing,  but  food  is  higher  in  Europe,  and  there  are  other 
items  of  increased  expense  to  balance  the  gain. 

The  Wagner  operas  were  being  given  in  Munich  while  I 
was  there.  The  Opera  House,  completed  in  1900,  is  quite 
the  best  building  for  the  purpose  in  a  way  that  I  have  ever 
seen,  not  excepting  the  Grand  Opera  House  of  Paris.  The 
orchestra  is  below  the  level  of  the  floor  and  is  quite  hidden 
by  an  overhanging  screen.  There  are  no  boxes  or  loges, 
nor  any  division  of  seats  in  any  way,  no  balcony  or  gallery. 
The  seats  are  sold  at  a  uniform  price  of  five  dollars  each, 
first  come,  first  served.  Now  I  will  admit  that  I  have  never 
seen  opera  so  well  staged — the  scenery  was  wonderful — nor 
ever  heard  such  a  perfect  orchestra,  nor  better  voices.  The 
tout  ensemble  of  the  opera  was  as  nearly  perfect  as  can  be 
imagined,  but  with  it  all  five  dollars  a  seat  is  not  in  consonance 
with  the  American  idea  of  opera  being  so  cheap  in  Germany 
that  one  may  go  with  all  his  family  every  night.  The  Ger- 
mans take  their  opera  in  heroic  doses.  It  was  "Das  Ehein- 
gold."  The  performance  began  at  5  and  went  straight 
through,  without  intermission,  to  the  end,  the  curtain  falling 
at  7.50.  I  must  say  that  while  I  am  an  admirer  of  Wagnerian 
music,  still  this  was  too  large  a  dose  for  me. 

The  next  night  at  the  theater  we  saw  Maeterlinck's  new 
drama,  "Monna  Vanna,"  translated  from  the  French  into 


Munich — A  Prophecy  of  the  Future.  331 

German.  It  was  given  extremely  well,  and  seems  to  me  to 
be  a  play  that  will  take  well  when  brought  out  in  America. 
Here,  too,  the  seats  were  not  given  away  for  a  song,  as 
American  travelers  so  often  would  have  us  believe.  All  the 
good  seats  were  two  dollars  each.  The  acting,  as  in  all 
German  companies  that  I  have  seen,  was  on  a  decidedly 
higher  average  plane  than  in  our  American  companies,  with 
their  one  star  performer  supported  by  a  lot  of  sticks. 

Munich  supports  a  daily  Socialist  paper,  and  both  of  its 
members  to  the  Reichstag  are  Socialists. 

It  seems  absurd  that  a  city  of  500,000,  like  Munich,  should 
be  allowed  but  two  members,  when,  if  there  were  an  equitable 
division  of  seats,  it  would  have  nearly  twenty.  A  redistribu- 
tion of  seats  in  the  Reichstag  will  not  be  made  because  it 
would  inure  immensely  to  the  advantage  of  the  Socialists, 
who  are  relatively  much  stronger  in  the  German  cities  than 
in  the  country  districts. 

Society  in  Munich  is  upon  a  very  democratic  basis.  Its 
doors  are  open  to  anyone  of  education  and  refinement.  There 
is  little  of  that  nonsense  about  birth  which  is  growing  so 
rapidly  in  America,  and  none  at  all  regarding  money. 

It  has  a  fine  university — 3,500  students — and  magnificent 
art  galleries,  the  collection  of  pictures  by  Rubens  being 
especially  good.  There  are  also  a  few  Murillos.  I  was 
especially  struck  with  the  picture  of  a  young  girl  by  Fritz 
Kaulbach  exhibited  in  this  year's  salon  and  of  which  a  half- 
tone is  given  on  another  page. 

From  Munich  I  took  the  train  direct  to  Vienna,  a  ten  hours' 
journey.  I  only  wish  our  American  farmers,  everyone  of 
them,  could  have  the  country  intervening  put  under  their  eye 
as  it  has  been  before  mine. 

The  next  election  time,  when  the  Republican  city  politician 
would  come  out  to  them  and  ask  for  a  return  of  the  Republi- 
can Party  to  power  on  account  of  what  Republicanism  had 
done  for  the  farmer  in  America,  their  happy  position  com- 
pared with  the  German  and  Austrian  farmer,  he  would  get  a 
jolt  from  his  audience  that  would  shock  him. 

As  I  have  said  in  another  article,  I  have  never  seen  the  ex- 
ternal evidence  of  comfort  in  farm  dwellings  in  America  that 
I  have  seen  here.  The  houses  are  all,  as  far  as  appearance 
goes,  suitable  for  summer  villas  for  those  of  our  American 


332  Wilshire   Editorials. 

city  men  who  farm  for  pastime  rather  than  profit.  Where  the 
farm  laborers  live  in  houses  separate  from  the  farmer's  family, 
which  is  apparently  very  seldom,  as  the  farms  are  too  small 
to  require  much  help  outside  the  family,  the  standard  of  com- 
fort for  him  is  on  exactly  the  same  plan  as  for  his  employer. 
The  buildings  used  by  many  of  our  American  farmers 
in  the  West,  and  particularly  those  furnished  for  the 
hired  men,  would  simply  not  be  tolerated  in  any  part  of 
Europe. 

Another  thing  that  strikes  one  is  the  comfortable  houses  af- 
forded by  the  railway  companies  to  their  employees, along  the 
line.  At  the  smallest  stations  where  the  train  stops,  there  is 
always  a  large  two  or  three-story  handsome  stone  structure. 
The  lower  part  is  used  for  a  ticket  office,  etc.,  and  the  upper 
rooms  for  the  ticket  agent  and  his  family. 

There  is  always  a  nice  garden  plot  about  the  house,  and  the 
windows  look  very  home-like  with  their  flower-boxes  and  lace 
curtains.  At  every  little  cross-road  there  is  also  a  nice  com- 
fortable stone  house  with  garden  for  the  man  who  lowers  the 
bar  when  the  train  crosses  the  road. 

There  is  many  a  free  and  mighty  American  citizen  in  the 
west  who  thinks  the  railway  company  exceedingly  generous 
when  they  allow  him  one  room  in  the  station  for  his  bedroom. 
If  he  has  a  family  then  he  must  rent  a  private  house.  Some- 
times, if  he  is  lucky,  he  may  get  the  company  to  allow  him 
an  old  freight  car  to  be  lifted  from  its  trucks  and  set  along- 
side the  track  to  be  modeled  into  a  castle  suitable  to  him  as 
an  American  voting  king. 

It  might  be  remarked  in  passing  that  the  railway  companies 
in  Germany  and  Austria  that  furnish  these  fine,  comfortable 
houses  for  their  employees  are  state  railways. 

We  Americans  are  all  right,  but  we  are  not  exactly  "it"  on 
everything. 

Vienna  I  reserve  for  another  letter.  I  have  already  had  the 
pleasure  of  meeting  Dr.  Lorenz  here,  the  great  expert  in  so- 
called  bloodless  surgery,  who  recently  had  such  a  triumphant 
tour  through  America.  He  went  there  originally,  it  may  be 
remembered,  to  treat  the  little  Armour  child,  of  Chicago,  for 
congenital  hip  joint  dislocation.  He  tells  me  the  operation  on 
the  child  has  been  a  great  and  complete  success.  His  rocms 
here  comprise  a  large  outside  flat  in  the  centre  of  town,  having 


Munich — A  Prophecy  of  the  Future.  333 

forty  outside  windows,  giving  light  such  as  one  rarely  gets  in 
an  American  city,  as  he  reminded  me. 

He  has  a  number  of  rooms  fitted  with  apparatus  for  carry- 
ing out  exercises  for  his  patients  taking  his  special  line  of 
treatment.  He  showed  me  one  little  girl  of  twelve  that  he  had 
operated  upon  about  six  months  ago  for  congenital  hip  joint 
dislocation,  and  who  was  rapidly  progressing,  but,  of  course, 
she  will  never  be  as  well  as  she  would  have  been  if  the  opera- 
tion had  been  done  at  a  much  younger  age.  In  this  case  there 
was  no  excuse  except  the  timidity  of  the  child's  parents.  They 
had  personally  known  Lorenz  and  his  method  for  ten  years, 
ever  since  the  child  was  two  years  old,  and  yet  they  had  hesita- 
ted from  year  to  year,  and  now,  when  the  child  is  twelve,  they 
bring  her  in  when  the  chances  of  success  are  so  little  that  the 
doctor  as  a  rule  would  have  refused  the  case.  In  America  Dr. 
Lorenz  gave  free  treatment  to  hundreds  of  poor  children  at 
the  public  clinics,  but  in  those  cases  he  made  it  a  practice  not 
to  take  on  any  child  who  was  over  seven  years  of  age,  as  the 
chances  of  success  were  so  remote  and  the  difficulty  of  the 
operation  at  ages  over  seven  so  greatly  enhanced. 

To-morrow  is  to  be  a  great  day  for  Vienna.  The  King  of 
England  is  to  arrive  here  and  be  the  guest  of  the  Emperor  of 
Austria. 


334  Wilshire   Editorials. 


THE  AMERICAN  IDEAL 

IT  is  cynically  remarked  by  many  that  we  Americans  have 
lost  our  ideals.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  for  a  man  to  lose  his  ideals,  although  condi- 
tions may  be  such  that  unless  he  sees  or  thinks  he  sees  the 
possibility  of  realizing  them  he  feels  it  futile  to  dwell  upon 
them.  We  Americans  are  to-day  largely  of  the  opinion 
that  our  old  ideal  of  freedom  for  the  citizen  seems  to  have 
become  an  impossibility.  There  was  a  time  when  we  all 
thought  that  individual  energy  and  talent  on  the  part  of  the 
citizen  were  all  that  was  necessary  for  him  to  acquire  an 
independence  and  be  as  good  as  anybody  else. 

We  always  realized  that  economic  independence  depended 
upon  the  possession  of  wealth;  and  now,  inasmuch  as  a  great 
part  of  the  wealth  of  this  country  has  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  Trusts,  the  individual  acquisition  of  wealth  has  be- 
come an  impossibility  to  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  We 
have  given  up  hope  of  any  distribution  of  the  wealth  held 
by  the  Trusts  through  the  enforcement  of  anti-Trust  laws, 
and  but  few  of  us  yet  see  that  this  distribution  can  be  effected 
by  State  Ownership. 

Judge  Grosscup,  who  recently  made  a  very  learned  speech 
about  the  Trusts,  a  resume  of  which  has  already  been  given 
in  this  magazine,  says  that  the  first  step  toward  the  regula- 
tion of  the  Trusts  should  be  the  repeal  of  the  Sherman 
Anti-Trust  law.  Of  course  he  is  right ;  but  since  he  does  not 
propose  any  other  law  to  take  its  place,  it  is  really  a  con- 
fession of  a  most  pessimistic  attitude  on  the  part  of  a  man 
who  should  be  thoroughly  competent  to  judge  of  the  situa- 
tion. His  logic,  however,  is  keener  and  clearer  than  that  of 
President  Roosevelt,  who  proposes  all  sorts  of  remedies,  and 
each  one  only  more  manifestly  impossible  than  the  previous 
one,  for  the  solution  of  the  Trust  problem.  As  between 
President  Roosevelt  and  Judge  Grosscup  I  prefer  Gross- 
cup's  position,  for  he  realizes  the  futility  of  things  as  they 
are,  and  I  take  it  the  great  mass  of  the  American  people  are 


The  American  Ideal.  335 

in  agreement  with  him  on  this  point.  We  no  longer  have 
any  confidence  in  Roosevelt  and  his  political  confreres  who 
talk  about  proceeding  against  the  Trusts  on  the  old  lines. 
We  have  largely  resigned  ourselves  to  Grosseup's  position 
that  nothing  can  be  done.  We  do  feel,  however,  that  there 
is  a  future  which  is  going  to  be  different  from  what  the 
present  is.  This  feeling  is  inborn  with  us.  We  cannot  get 
rid  of  the  idea  that  America  means  something  more  than  a 
mere  pleasure  ground  for  a  few  Goulds  and  Vanderbilts  to 
use  as  a  pleasure  park.  That  the  public  ownership  of  mo- 
nopolies would  be  a  great  step  toward  the  attainment  of  our 
ideals  would  hardly  be  questioned  by  any  one  who  has  given 
the  Trust  problem  any  thought. 

I  appeal  to  the  young  men  of  America  to  come  forward 
and  help  toward  the  realization  of  the  American  ideal  of 
freedom.  It  is  really  you  who  should  bear  the  brunt  of 
assisting  in  making  the  change  from  the  present  autocratic 
industrial  condition  to  a  democratic  one.  You  realize  well 
enough  that  the  country  is  certainly  rich  enough  to  make 
the  very  suggestion  of  the  necessity  of  poverty  a  ghastly 
mockery.  If  your  grandfathers  could  look  to  a  future  of  hap- 
piness and  freedom  and  wealth,  when  they  had  no  dream 
of  the  labor-saving  machinery  of  to-day,  then  certainly  it  is 
not  flattering  to  your  intelligence  if  you  think  that  poverty 
is  necessary  when  we  have  at  hand  such  abundant  means  to 
prevent  it. 

What  is  the  young  man  of  America  doing  to-day  to  realize 
the  ideal  which  must  be  within  his  breast? 

Practically  nothing.  Instead  of  paying  attention  to  po- 
litical and  industrial  developments  he  is  more  apt  to  be  spec- 
ulating on  the  result  of  a  football  game  or  what  horse* will 
win  the  race  to-morrow.  Instead  of  having  pity  for  the  poor 
of  the  country  who  are  suffering  from  unnecessary  poverty, 
he  is  wasting  his  life  in  pool  and  billiard  rooms,  smoking 
cigarettes. 

He  goes  to  school  and  college,  and  his  main  idea  is  not 
to  acquire  culture  or  learning,  but  to  get  sufficient  credit 
marks  to  graduate  him  with  the  least  possible  work,  that 
he  may  have  the  greatest  possible  amount  of  time  to  devote 
to  dissipation.  This  is  certainly  no  flattering  picture;  and 
it  has  a  very  depressing  effect  upon  those  people  who,  as  they 


336  Wilshire   Editorials. 

view  the  country,  do  not  see  any  reason  for  a  change  in  the 
sentiment  and  conduct  of  our  young  men.  However,  I  can 
see  that  the  mode  of  life  of  the  young  man  of  America  to- 
day, while  most  deplorable,  has  not  quite  succeeded  in  ut- 
terly destroying  his  ideals.  The  trouble  is  simply  that  the 
conditions  which  may  look  to  their  realization  seem  so  im- 
possible to  him  that  he  is  now  dissipating  energies  which 
would  under  other  conditions  be  turned  into  better  and 
nobler  channels.  It  is  not  that  the  young  American  does 
not  wish  to  control  his  own  country  and  his  own  destiny,  but 
simply  that  he  does  not  see  how  to  do  it.  It  is  the  mission 
of  the  Socialist  not  only  to  inspire  these  young  men  with  the 
ideal  of  commanding  their  own  destin}^,  but  also  to  show 
them  how  this  command  can  be  attained.  The  "reform" 
school  of  politics,  some  twenty-five  years  ago,  attempted 
to  appeal  to  our  young  men  by  holding  up  to  them  the  ideal 
of  honesty  in  office  as  the  great  ultimate.  This  movement 
has  failed  of  its  purpose,  and  in  consequence  a  great  many 
of  the  men  of  the  Carl  Schurz  type,  and  those  whose  views 
are  represented  by  the  editorials  of  the  New  York  Evening 
Post,  are  becoming  exceedingly  pessimistic.  After  all,  this 
is  but  natural.  The  average  young  man  of  to-day  has  no 
property.  He  knows  if  he  goes  into  politics  he  loses  caste 
with  his  business  associates,  the  general  theory  throughout 
the  country  being — and  it  is  a  well-founded  one — that  "pol- 
itics ruin  a  man."  This,  of  course,  refers  to  going  into  pol- 
itics with  one  of  the  old  parties;  for  no  one  goes  into  politics 
with  one  of  the  old  parties  except  with  the  idea  of  getting 
an  office  or  bettering  his  individual  condition.  Going  into 
'"reform"  politics  has  no  attractions,  because  it  only  means 
that  certain  men  are  elected  to  office  who  pretend  to  be 
more  honest  than  the  "old  party"  men,  and  if  elected  ex- 
perience goes  to  show  that  they  do  not  make  good;  and, 
even  if  they  did,  the  benefit  accruing  from  an  honest  admin- 
istration falls  largely  to  the  few  who  own  property,  lather 
than  to  the  great  mass  of  the  people. 

Thus  it  is  easy  enough  to  see  why  neither  "old  party''  pol- 
itics nor  "reform"  politics  attracts  the  young  man.  Socialist 
politics  would  attract  him  if  he  had  given  it  sufficient 
thought  to  know  what  Socialism  meant,  but  he  hasn't.  He 
regards  the  Socialist  as  a  crank  with  some  wild  visions  of 


-  The  American  Ideal.  337 

an  impossible  Utopia  that  is  to  be  reached  some  time  after 
the  next  thousand  years.  He  does  not  understand  that  the 
Trust  is  the  greatest  argument  the  Socialist  uses  to  prove 
the  inevitability  of  Socialism;  and  the  chances  are  that  he 
will  not  realize  the  force  of  this  argument  until  the  Trust 
itself  finally  throws  him  out  of  his  job.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  we  are  now  rapidly  approaching  a  great  unemployed 
problem.  When  this  occurs,  these  young  Americans,  who 
now  give  no  attention  to  Socialism,  will  give  it  plenty  of 
attention  when  they  find  their  own  bread-and-butter  is  at 
stake. 

All  mankind  has  an  ideal  of  a  paradise  on  earth;  and  if 
we  analyze  our  idea  of  paradise  it  resolves  itself  into  a  con- 
dition of  existence  where  every  one  is  on  an  economic  equal- 
ity, where  there  is  no  danger  of  starvation,  where  there  is 
not  too  much  work  and  where  everybody  is  happy.  Now, 
in  order  to  banish  fear  of  starvation  it  is  necessary 
to  have  the  earth  on  which  to  raise  the  food,  and 
to  raise  food  with  ease  it  is  necessary  to  have  ma- 
chinery. We  Americans  certainly  have  provided  the  earth 
with  machinery  in  a  larger  degree  than  has  ever  been 
done  before.  We  know  how  to  produce  the  greatest 
quantity  of  wealth  with  the  least  amount  of  human  labor 
that  has  ever  been  required  in  the  world's  history.  We 
have  made  the  first  great  step  toward  our  Earthly  Paradise. 
The  only  thing  that  remains  for  us  to  do  now  is  to  devise  a 
plan  by  which  we  can  distribute  this  wealth  which  we  so 
easily  produce.  When  we  achieve  that  end,  we  shall  realize 
the  American  ideal. 

Our  work  is  to  make  the  young  American  see  that  his 
ideal  can  only  be  reached  through  the  advent  of  Socialism. 


338  Wilshiee   Editorials. 


THE  TRUST  OVERSHADOWS  ALL  ISSUES 

THAT  the  Trust  would  sooner  or  later  be  the  great  issue 
in  American  politics  I  have  never  once  doubted  for 
the  last  fifteen  years.  My  surprise  to-day  is  not  that 
it  has  suddenly  become  so  important  an  issue,  but  that  it  has 
been  so  long  in  becoming  such.  In  1884  I  was  managing- 
director  of  the  Eiverside  Rolling  Mill  Co.,  of  Cincinnati, 
Ohio.  The  price  of  iron  was  steadily  falling  and  there 
seemed  an  end  to  things.  If  we  wished  to  sell  our  iron  we 
must  meet  a  market  that  already  forced  us  to  manufacture 
at  less  than  cost,  and  there  seemed  no  prospect  of  the  future 
being  any  better  than  the  present.  There  was  no  way  that 
we  could  lower  the  cost  of  producing.  We  bought  our  ore 
and  coal  at  the  lowest  market  price,  and  our  day  labor  was 
at  a  price  that  only  too  obviously  admitted  of  no  reduction. 
The  men  were  already  at  the  margin  of  starvation.  Our 
skilled  labor  was  paid  upon  the  scale  of  the  Amalgamated 
Iron  Workers  that  allowed  us  no  option  about  reduction. 
We  must  either  pay  the  scale  or  shut  up  shop.  I  was  young 
in  business  in  those  days,  fresh  from  Harvard  College,  and  I 
used  to  puzzle  over  the  question  of  how  long  the  world 
could  get  along  on  the  basis  of  everybody  losing  money. 
For  after  rinding  out  there  was  nothing  in  the  iron  business 
I  naturally  looked  into  other  businesses  and  my  inquiries 
showed  me  that  the  iron  business  was  in  no  exceptional  con- 
dition. Every  manufacturer  that  I  talked  with  had  the  same 
story  to  tell  of  the  impossibility  of  making  a  living  with  the 
existing  low  prices.  I  was  so  discouraged  with  the  outlook 
for  making  money  in  ordinary  business  that  I  made  up  my 
mind  that  the  only  thing  to  produce  that  seemed  to  be 
sure  of  a  market  at  a  standard  price  was  gold.  Therefore  I 
decided  to  go  into  gold  mining.  When  you  got  your 
ounce  of  gold  it  was  always  worth  your  $20  and  this  sort 
of  a  business  seemed  infinitely  better  than  the  iron  business 
where  you  had  to  sell  your  iron  ten  per  cent,  less  every  three 
months  than  you  originally  expected  for  it. 


The  Trust  Overshadows  All  Issues.  3j39 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  his  Standard  Oil  Trust 
had  already  even  in  that  early  day  shown  me  and  the  rest  of 
the  world  how  to  prevent  over-production  and  get  a  fixed 
price  for  our  product,  but  I  did  not  see  how  I  could  ever 
wait  long  enough  for  the  iron  men  to  get  sense  enough  to 
follow  Mr.  Rockefeller's  example. 

It  is  well,  too,  that  I  did  not  wait.  It  took  those  iron 
manufacturers  eighteen  years,  from  1884  to  1902,  to  do  what 
they  should  have  had  the  sense  to  have  done  at  once.  How 
they  ever  managed  to  survive  all  those  eighteen  years  has 
been  a  great  surprise  to  me,  although  I  know  that  it  has  not 
been  four  years  since  a  good  many  of  them,  who  are  now  on 
Easy  street  through  the  forming  of  the  Morgan  Trust,  were 
on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy. 

While  I  was  investigating  gold  mining  prospects,  which, 
by  the  way,  did  not  prove  to  be  particularly  rosy  because 
the  uncertainty  of  your  product  fully  offset  the  certainty 
of  your  selling  price,  I  happened  to  be  chucked  off  a  frac- 
tious horse  in  the  mountains  of  California  and  suffered  a 
broken  jaw.  Although  I  was  not  an  "agitator"  in  those  days, 
nevertheless  I  felt  my  jaw  an  important  enough  member 
of  my  ego  to  justify  a  trip  to  Southern  California  to  allow 
it  an  opportunity  to  consolidate,  to  form  a  little  trust  of  its 
own,  so  to  speak.  While  there,  the  real  estate  boom  came  on 
and  I,  at  last,  saw  an  opportunity  of  buying  something — 
land — which  looked  as  if  one  could  be  sure  of  selling  it  for 
more  than  he  paid  for  it.  I  gave  up  my  determination  to 
go  in  for  gold  mining  and  became  a  real  estate  shark.  It 
was  possible  for  a  year  or  so  to  buy  land  and  sell  it  at  a 
considerably  larger  price  than  you  paid  for  it;  then  the 
"boom  busted"  and  as  far  as  I  could  see,  the  problem  of 
selling  for  more  than  you  gave  was  as  impossible  of  solution 
as  ever,  unless  you  could  form  a  trust.  This  was  in  1888. 
Since  then  there  have  been  ups  and  downs1  in  business,  prin- 
cipally "downs,"  though,  for  most  men,  and  the  "downs" 
had  all  the  game  to  themselves,  apparently,  until  after  Mc- 
Kinley's  first  election,  when  the  Cuban  war  stirred  up  trade 
so  much  by  the  destruction  of  property  and  the  consequent 
demand  for  things  of  all  kinds,  that  ever  since  the  "ups" 
have  been  very  much  in  evidence  for  most  American  busi- 
ness men. 


340  Wilshire   Editorials. 

However,  a  little  prosperity  has  not  made  them  blind  to 
the  advantages  a  trust  has  in  making  assurance  doubly  sure. 
If  we  had  not  had  the  war,  the  trusts  would  certainly  have 
been  formed  as  a  matter  of  absolute  necessity.  As  it  is,  they 
may  possibly  have  been  formed  as  a  matter  of  expediency 
in  some  cases,  although  I  think  most  of  the  insiders  on  the 
trusts  of  to-day  would  admit  that  they  had  in  forming  their 
trusts  only  forestalled  an  inevitability. 

I  think  my  own  experience  in  business  life  in  America 
since  the  year  1884  is  more  or  less  typical  of  all  other  busi- 
ness men.  We  all  realize  that  the  only  way  to  make  money 
is  to  get  into  a  monopoly,  and  if  that  cannot  be  done  then 
the  best  thing  is  to  stay  out  of  business.  However,  there 
happen  to  be  so  many  people  who  must  make  a  living  some- 
how, that  neither  get  into  a  trust  nor  stay  out  of  business, 
that  there  is  considerable  dissatisfaction  in  the  land  among 
these  outsiders.  They  may  be  very  rude  to  make  their 
weeping  and  wailing  such  an  offence  to  the  eye  and  ear,  but 
we  must  take  men  as  they  are. 

Man  is  primarily  and  above  all  things  an  eating  animal, 
and  after  all  an  animal  is  simply  an  intelligent  automobile 
carrying  around  an  ever  greedy  stomach.  If  a  man  cannot 
feed  himself  he  is  sure  to  make  unpleasant  remarks.  If  to 
feed  oneself  one  must  own  a  trust,  and  there  are  not  enough 
trusts  to  go  around,  then  those  fellows  who  fail  to  draw  a 
trust  are  sure  to  become  ill-natured  and  generally  inconsid- 
erate. However,  the  mere  matter  of  men  being  inconsid- 
erate would  be  of  no  particular  moment, — men  are  usually 
that  way  anyhow,  some  people  think, — did  it  not  happen 
that  these  fellows  propose  to  take  their  inconsiderateness 
into  the  political  field. 

It  so  happens  that  the  fellows  who  draw  blanks  in  the 
trust  lottery  are  so  far  in  the  majority  of  those  who  draw 
prizes  that  if  it  came  to  a  matter  of  voting  there  is  not  the 
remotest  doubt  as  to  who  would  win  out.  However,  while 
the  winners  of  the  trust  prizes  are  few  in  number  they 
make  up  in  brains  what  they  lack  in  numbers,  and  they  also 
have  brains  enough  to  know  where  to  hire  other  brains  to 
do  some  of  their  thinking  for  them.  What  they  are  mor- 
tally afraid  of  just  now  is  that  the  business  men  who  are  not 
in  on  the  draw  will  throw  down  their  cards  and  demand  a 


The  Trust  Overshadows  All  Issues.  341 

new  deal.  Hence  the  main  object  of  the  winners  is  to  per- 
suade the  losers  to  continue  in  the  game  by  feeding  them 
with  fairy  stories  of  how,  by  some  change  in  the  rules,  they 
will  be  able  once  again  to  win  back  their  losings. 

In  the  present  stage  of  the  trust  problem  the  working- 
man  is  largely  a  disinterested  onlooker.  The  people  who  are 
objecting  to  trusts  are  not  the  workingmen,  but  the  capital- 
ists who  have  been  squeezed  by  the  trusts.  It  is  true  that 
the  beef  trust  has  called  attention  to  itself  by  the  high  price 
of  beef  and  many  workingmen  have  suddenly  become  aware 
of  their  interest  in  the  trust  problem  on  that  account  who 
hitherto  had  regarded  the  trust  problem  as  one  of  simply 
academic  interest  with  no  immediate  application  to  their 
daily  life.  However,  the  price  of  beef  will  fall  or  wages  will 
adapt  themselves,  and  that  episode  was  and  is  simply  an 
accidental  note  in  the  song  of  monopoly.  The  merchants 
and  manufacturers  who  have  lost  their  power  to  conduct 
an  independent  competitive  business  alongside  of  the  trust, 
however,  are  naturally  up  in  arms  against  an  invasion  which 
threatens  their  commercial  existence.  Thus,  when  the  trust 
problem  is  represented  as  overshadowing  all  other  issues  of 
to-day  what  is  really  meant  is  that  the  smaller  capitalists, 
and  they  are  vastly  in  the  numerical  majortiy,  are  demand- 
ing legislation  to  curtail  the  growth  of  monopoly.  So  far  in 
the  United  States  political  issues  have  always  been  simply 
clashes  between  the  different  interests  of  certain  capitalists. 
It  is  true  that  the  interest  of  the  workingman  and  the  coun- 
try as  a  whole  has  always  been  the  ostensible  interest  in 
concern  by  both  parties,  but  this  has  always  been  a  palpable 
mask  used  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  votes.  For  instance, 
take  the  tariff  issue.  The  manufacturers  wanted  a  high 
tariff  to  increase  their  profits,  but  they  said  they  wanted  it 
in  order  to  pay  higher  wages.  On  the  other  hand  the  farm- 
ers wanted  a  low  tariff  in  order  to  reduce  the  cost  of  the 
various  articles  they  required  and  the  price  of  which  was 
raised  by  the  tariff,  but  they  said  they  wanted  a  lower  tariff 
in  order  that  the  workingmen  could  buy  the  necessities  of 
life,  including  farm  products,  at  a  lower  price. 

So  it  is  to-day  the  smaller  capitalists  want  the  trusts 
crushed  because  if  they  are  not  crushed,  they  themselves 
will  be  crushed.    It  would  never  do  for  these  capitalists  to 


342  Wilshike   Editorials. 

go  before  the  country  with,  such  a  purely  selfish  cry  that  they 
wanted  legislation  simply  in  order  to  protect  their  own  par- 
ticular class,  so  they  add  to  the  causes  which  impel  them 
to  attack  the  trust  on  their  own  account  the  additional  ones 
which  they  think  will  make  workingmen  and  the  country  at 
large  rally  to  their  support. 

First,  they  say  the  trust,  by  holding  a  complete  monopoly 
of  the  sources  of  life,  is  putting  the  whole  country  at  its 
mercy. 

Second,  they  say  that  by  reason  of  the  undoubted  economies 
the  trust  introduced  in  the  production  of  goods  it  is  threat- 
ening the  working  class  with  a  huge  unemployed  problem. 

Of  course  both  these  indictments  are  correct,  but  what  I 
wish  to  call  attention  to  is  that  the  smaller  capitalists  would 
never  have  paid  attention  to  the  "country  as  a  whole,"  nor 
the  working  class  in  particular,  unless  they  had  seen  their  own 
interests  in  jeopardy  and  wished  to  call  to  their  political  sup- 
port other  interests  outside  of  their  own  particular  circle. 

I  am  not  blaming  them  for  this  course.  It  is  simply  a 
natural  human  phenomenon.  Men  never  look  much  after 
other  people's  interests;  they  are  usually  too  busy  looking 
after  their  own. 

However,  just  as  these  same  smaller  capitalists  could  never 
be  induced  to  take  action  until  the  trust  had  actually  com- 
pelled them  to  look  financial  death  in  the  face,  just  so  will 
the  working  class  never  take  action  until  they,  too,  are 
placed  in  the  same  relative  position  that  these  capitalists  are 
in.  The  appeal  to  the  working  class  to  rally  to  the  support 
of  the  smaller  capitalists  will  be  in  vain.  The  workingman 
will  vote  just  as  he  has  been  voting  until  an  economic  con- 
dition presents  itself  directly  to  him,  that  will  compel  his 
attention. 

Judging  from  the  following  editorial  the  Detroit  Tribune 
thinks  that  such  a  condition  has  already  presented  itself. 

THE  ALARM  OF  LABOR  IS  NATURAL. 

Trust  control  of  any  industry  means  the  application  of  trust 
methods.  Trust  method  means  the  systematic  elimination  of 
every  item  of  cost  that  can  be  dispensed  with.  It  means  the 
substitution  of  cunning  mechanism  for  human  handiwork  as  far 
as  possible.  It  means  the  substitution  of  women  and  children  for 
men  in  every  department  where  men  can  be  thus  displaced.     It 


The  Trust  Overshadows  All  Issues.  343 

means  a  reduction  of  prices  just  to  the  exact  point  that  will 
squeeze  out  competition.  Then  follows  absolute  control  of  price 
and  product. 

A  case  that  is  very  much  in  the  public  eye  is  that  of  the  Brown 
cigar  factory.  It  was  operated  under  a  system  by  which  young 
girls  became  competitors  of  men  in  cigar  making.  Their  product 
went  out  in  competition  with  that  of  skilled  laborers.  Now  an- 
other step  is  being  taken  which  will  multiply  the  effectiveness 
of  the  trust  operative.  The  displacing  of  a  certain  number  of  girls 
from  their  employment  in  a  given  factory  is  the  lesser  evil, 
although  that  is  bad  enough  for  those  who  are  dependent  upon 
such  employment  and  are  the  support  or  partial  support  of  a 
family.  Trust  control  must  by  its  constant  reduction  in  the  cost 
of  production  seriously  affect  the  independent  factories  and  their 
workmen  who  make  a  specialty  of  hand  work.  It  is  possible  that 
the  future  of  such  industries  may  not  be  as  bad  as  it  looks,  but 
the  operatives  cannot  be  blamed  for  exhibiting  serious  alarm 
for  their  jobs  and  hostility  to  the  new  system. 

Passing  by  the  complacent  manner  with  which  the  Trihune 
regards  a  system  which  forces  girls  to  support  their  families 
as  a  perfect  natural  and  satisfactory  one,  and  that  anything 
which  tends  to  prevent  the  perpetuation  of  such  a  system 
must  be  viewed  with  abhorrence,  I  would  deny  the  general 
proposition  that  the  working  class  as  a  class  are 
ready  to  take  any  decided  stand  against  the  trust 
in  its  present  stage  of  development.  I  say  this  simply 
because  the  problem  of  unemployment  is  not  sufficiently 
large  to  induce  any  considerable  part  of  them  to 
think.  The  capitalist's  political  brains  are  found  in  his 
pocket-book;  the  workingman's  brains  are  in  his  stomach. 
The  capitalist  is  finding  the  trust  emptying  his  pocket- 
book.  I  have  been  warning  him  that  this  event  was  sure  to 
happen,  warning  him  for  fifteen  years  or  more,  but  he.  would 
never  listen.  In  fact  now  that  his  pocket-book  is  actually 
being  emptied,  while  he  is  kicking  hard  enough,  he  has 
hardly  yet  come  to  listen  to  the  advice  I  offer  him.  He  still 
wishes  to  destroy  the  trusts ;  I  tell  him,  "Let  the  Nation  Own 
the  Trust." 

This  is  too  radical  a  solution  yet  for  him  to  adopt,  although, 
judging  from  the  editorials  appearing  in  the  Hearst  papers 
demanding  National  Ownership  of  Trusts,  I  should  judge 
that  the  tide  is  setting  pretty  strong  in  that  direction  now-a- 
days. 

Mr.  Hearst  has  too  much  good  newspaper  sense  to  run 


344  Wilshike   Editorials. 

-very  far  ahead  of  public  opinion.  Mr.  Hearst  gives  his  readers 
such  ideas  as  he  thinks  are  in  commercial  demand,  albeit  he 
usually  selects  the  more  radical  kind.  I,  on  the  other  hand, 
give  my  readers  the  kind  of  ideas  they  ought  to  like.  I  am 
like  a  temperance  bar-keeper,  who,  when  a  customer  asks  for 
whiskey,  puts  him  off  by  giving  out  ginger-ale.  This  is  not 
usually  a  good  commercial  policy,  and,  in  fact,  is  so  unheard 
of  that  when  Mr.  Madden  refused  me  the  use  of  the  United 
States  Post-office  to  carry  on  such  an  unusual  business  of 
selling  my  own  hand-made  ideas  instead  of  the  ordinary  ones 
manufactured  in  quantities  for  the  general  newspaper  trade, 
he  had  the  endorsement  of  President  Roosevelt  and  the 
whole  tribe  of  American  politicians,  together  with  the  daily 
press.  In  Canada  all  manufacturing  processes  are  somewhat 
backward  compared  with  the  United  States  and  home-made 
articles  are  still  in  demand,  hence,  owing  to  this  primitive 
state  of  affairs  they  let  me  publish  and  manufacture  home- 
made ideas  and  send  them  through  the  mails  to  a  degree  of 
liberality  that  must  be  quite  shocking  to  the  firm  of  Madden, 
Roosevelt  &  Co. 

However,  while  the  small  capitalist  is  shilly-shallying  with 
the  trust  problem  and  letting  President  Roosevelt  fool  him 
with  ridiculous  feints  through  palpably  impossible  actions  in 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court  against  the  beef  trust,  the 
steady  march  of  economic  evolution  goes  on  apace  and  condi- 
tions are  fast  becoming  so  ripe  that  they  will  force  the  work- 
ing class  to  act. 

The  small  capitalist  is  at  present  praying  to  the  working- 
man  to  come  to  his  aid  and  destroy  the  trust  in  order  that 
he,  the  small  capitalist,  may  once  more  go  into  business. 
The  promise  made  to  the  workingman  is  that  the  waste  of 
labor  engendered  by  this  going  back  to  the  methods  of  pro- 
duction on  a  small  scale  will  be  sure  to  make  his  labor  much 
more  in  demand  than  at  present.  He  will  have  good  wages 
and  a  steady  job  if  he  destroys  the  trust.  That  there  is  some- 
thing in  this  argument  cannot  be  denied.  There  was  some- 
thing in  the  logic  of  the  hand- weavers  who  in  1838  tried  to 
destroy  the  machinery  that  was  taking  away  their  livelihood. 
The  proposition,  viewing  it  politically,  is  simply  this,  "Can 
there  be  a  sufficient  number  rallied  to  the  support  of  a  move- 
ment to  prevent  an  economic  development?"     If  not,  then 


The  Trust  Overshadows  All  Issues.  345 

the  movement  must  proceed.  The  growth  of  the  use  of  ma- 
chinery has  never  yet  been  stayed,  because  men  were  thrown 
out  of  employment  by  its  use,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
future  should  differ  from  the  past.  A  boy  may  wish  to  remain 
a  boy,  but  he  grows  into  a  man  all  the  same. 

I  referred  to  the  steady  growth  of  the  process  of  economic 
evolution  finally  forcing  the  working  class  into  a  very  pro- 
nounced attitude  on  the  question  of  the  trusts. 

The  stage  in  which  this  event  will  occur  is  not  during  a 
stage  or  period  of  so-called  prosperity  such  as  we  are  now 
enjoying.  It  will  come  during  a  time  of  depression.  De- 
pression will  only  come  when  the  demand  for  new  machinery 
has  so  decreased  that  the  demand  for  labor  to  build  such 
machinery  falls  off  to  a  degree  to  create  an  unemployed 
problem.  The  trust  presages  that  such  a  condition  is  rapidly 
approaching. 

The  trust  is  primarily  simply  a  device  on  the  part  of  the 
capitalists  to  prevent  price-cutting  as  the  result  of  over-pro- 
duction. Over-production  is  caused  by  the  competitive  wage 
system  limiting  wages  to  approximately  what  it  cost  the 
workingman  to  live.  We  have  by  the  use  of  machinery  largely 
augmented  the  product  of  the  workingman,  but  he  has  shared 
hardly  at  all  in  this  increased  productivity.  The  increase  has 
gone  to  the  capitalist  who  has  used  it  in  the  production  of 
new  machinery.  He  has  had  finally  piled  up  for  him  more 
capital  in  the  shape  of  new  machinery  than  he  can  use,  and 
therefore  he  has  been  compelled  to  form  a  trust  to  prevent 
over-production.  The  first  economic  effect  of  the  trust  is  to 
force  the  surrender  of  other  manufacturing  capitalists  en- 
gaged in  the  same  line  of  production.  The  next  point  of 
attack  is  the  capitalists  engaged  in  distributing  its  products. 
For  instance,  the  American  Tobacco  Trust  first  captured  most 
of  the  competing  establishments  manufacturing  tobacco. 
After  that  it  went  after  the  wholesalers  and  jobbers  and  forced 
them  to  abandon  handling  any  competitive  brands.  By  this 
means  it  forced  the  surrender  of  those  recalcitrant  competi- 
tive manufacturing  establishments  who  would  not  surrender 
on  direct  assault.  They  were  starved  out  by  a  siege.  Their 
sources  of  supply  were  withdrawn  by  taking  away  from  them 
the  avenue  by  which  they  sold  their  goods  and  derived  their 
profits. 


346  Wilshire   Editorials. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  first  people  to  be  up  in  arms  against 
the  trust  are  naturally  those  first  attacked,  namely,  the  smal- 
ler competing  establishments  and  the  distributive  establish- 
ments, that  is,  they  are  capitalists  and  not  workingmen.  These 
are  the  men  who  are  now  doing  most  of  the  howling,  and 
from  them  very  largely  comes  the  cry  for  workingmen  in 
particular,  and  the  public  in  general  to  rush  to  their  aid  and 
destroy  the  trust  in  order  that  they,  the  capitalists,  may  live. 

When  the  people  at  large  and  the  workingmen  do  not 
respond  with  that  alacrity  which  they  supposed  they  would 
show,  these  small  fry  capitalists  throw  up  their  hands  to 
heaven  and  cry  that  the  country  is  "going  to  destruction." 

They  confuse  their  own  petty  interests  with  those  of  the 
country  at  large. 

We  can  dispense  with  these  little  capitalists  and  we  can 
see  the  jobbers  and  wholesalers  enslaved  by  the  trust  and  still 
see  how  the  country  can  live.  It  is  the  usual  process  of 
nature  to  eliminate  the  unnecessary.  Years  ago  the  farmer 
cried  that  the  middle  man  must  go.  He  is  going.  However, 
the  day  will  come,  and  it  is  rapidly  approaching,  when  the 
trust  will  say  to  the  working  class,  "You  have  built  up  the 
manufacturing  plants  of  this  country  to  such  an  extent  and 
to  such  perfection  that  we  do  not  require  your  service  to  build 
any  more  and  we  do  not  require  many  of  you  to  operate  those 
already  built,  so  automatic  has  your  ingenuity  made  them'* 
then  may  we  expect  the  working  class  to  at  last  awaken  to 
the  real  significance  of  the  trust.  The  workingman  will  only 
vote  for  the  Public  Ownership  of  Trusts  when  lack  of  em- 
ployment will  force  him  to  do  so  in  order  to  preserve  his 
existence.  The  smaller  capitalists  never  made  a  move  when 
they  simply  had  the  theory  of  the  trust  expounded  to  them. 
We  had  to  see  the  trust  actually  throttle  them  before  they 
could  realize  their  danger.  Why  should  the  working  class  be 
any  clearer  sighted  than  those  capitalists?  There  is  no 
reason  to  expect  it.  They,  too,  will  decline  to  move  until 
conditions  force  them  to,  and  the  only  hope  I  have  of  soon 
seeing  any  movement  from  them  is  simply  because  I  foresee 
conditions  where  they  will  have  but  one  chance  of  escaping 
starvation  from  an  unemployed  problem.  That  chance  will 
be  the  adoption  of  the  Co-operative  Wage  System,  Public 
Ownership  of  the  Trusts  and  Means  of  Production. 


The  Trust  Overshadows  All  Issues.  347 

The  co-operative  wage  system  will  do  away  with  the  over- 
production, for  over-production  is  simply  the  result  of  the 
competitive  wage  system  preventing  the  laborer  buying  back 
what  he  produces.  By  the  aid  of  machinery  the  worker  pro- 
duces far  more  than  he  gets.  The  surplus  has  been  handed 
over  to  the  capitalist,  who  in  turn  has  used  it  up  in  the  pro- 
duction of  more  and  more  machinery.  He  has  been  "building 
up  the  country."  As  long  as  the  capitalist  could  use  this 
surplus  in  this  manner  there  would  never  be  any  permanent 
unemployed  problem,  because  when  the  laborer  had  produced 
enough  to  feed  himself  the  capitalist  would  set  him  to  work 
producing  more  machinery. 

But  now  comes  the  trust  as  the  sign  that  this  production 
of  new  machinery  must  come  to  an  end  for  the  simple  reason 
that  no  more  machinery  is  needed. 

This  is  why  the  Trust  signifies  an  Unemployed  Problem. 

However,  until  this  problem  of  unemployment  is  right 
upon  the  laborer  as  a  fact,  and  not  as  a  theory  in  "Wilshire's 
Magazine,"  history  teaches  us  that  he  will  do  nothing.  I 
therefore  do  not  look  for  any  great  political  movement  as  the 
result  of  the  trust  until  this  unemployed  problem  actually 
makes  its  appearance.  When  this  event  does  occur,  and  it 
cannot  be  many  years  away,  then  it  is  evident  that  a  solution 
must  be  found. 

I  myself  take  the  scientific  Socialist  stand  that  no  solution 
can  be  found  other  than  the  establishment  of  the  co-operative 
commonwealth. 

However,  while  I  declare  that  this  catastrophic  theory  is 
the  only  true  theory  from  a  scientific  economic  standpoint, 
yet  I  admit  that  from  the  purely  political  standpoint  there 
are  many  reasons  why  I  should  favor  trying  to  make  steps 
toward  the  co-operative  commonwealth,  even  though  I  do  not 
think  those  steps  will  ever  be  built,  or,  if  built,  will  be  ever 
used  to  assist  us  in  gaining  the  aforesaid  co-operative  com- 
monwealth. 

I  do  not  believe  there  will  ever  be  a  single  trust  or  a  single 
railway  nationalized  in  the  United  States  before  the  whole  of 
industry  is  nationalized,  yet  I  know  that  there  are  many  peo- 
ple who  can  never  see  how  we  can  nationalize  all  industry  un- 
til they  are  first  convinced  of  the  good  and  the  practicability 
of  nationalizing  railroads.    For  such  people  we  need  a  kinder- 


348  Wilshiee   Editorials. 

garten  method  of  teaching,  but  because  a  kindergarten  is 
needed  is  no  reason  for  us  to  refuse  to  educate  children  at  all. 
The  man  is  only  the  outcome  of  the  child,  both  physically 
and  mentally,  and  many  a  man  has  the  frame  of  an  adult,  con- 
cealing the  brain  of  a  boy,  and  especially  is  this  true  of  his 
capacity  to  absorb  a  theory  in  economics.  We  must  take  men 
as  they  are,  and  not  as  we  would  have  them.  Just  as  I  know 
the  small  capitalists  will  never  be  able  to  rally  the  working- 
class  to  their  support  on  any  theory  of  economics,  so  do  I 
know  that  until  those  same  capitalists  see  that  their  economic 
salvation  depends  upon  the  nationalization  of  the  trusts 
they  will  never  favor  such  legislation.  However,  the  day  is 
now  at  hand  when  such  capitalists  will  favor  such  a  measure, 
and  they  will  be  enforced  in  their  demand  by  the  farmers. 
There  will  also  be  a  number  of  workingmen  who  will  join 
them  in  this  demand.  It  is  true  that  these  people  will  be 
demanding  nationalization  simply  as  a  reform  of  our  pres- 
ent competitive  system,  and  with  no  thought  of  its  leading  to 
the  co-operative  commonwealth,  but  even  so,  that,  to  my  mind, 
is  no  reason  why  I  should  not  do  all  I  can  to  help  them  along 
with  their  movement,  and  utilize  their  platform  to  affirm  the 
necessity  of  still  further  steps  in  order  to  introduce  what  will 
be  finally  necessary,  viz.,  the  Abolition  of  the  Competitive 
Wage  System. 

Let  us  get  down  to  Earth  in  our  dealings  with  men,  and 
always  remember  that  you  can  do  much  more  toward  teaching 
a  man  a  new  idea  if  you  start  out  by  humoring  his  prejudices 
rather  than  by  antagonizing  them. 

This  magazine  is  published  for  the  purpose  of  extending 
the  idea  of  the  Necessity  of  Socialism.  I  am  lucky  to  be  in 
Canada  when  I  say  this,  because  in  the  United  States  you 
must  declare  you  publish  a  paper  to  make  money,  otherwise 
the  Madden-Roosevelt  Post  Office  will  rule  you  from  the  sec- 
ond-class privilege  because  your  primary  object  is  not  to  make 
money  but  to  advertise  ideas.  This  sounds  funny,  but  it's 
simply  a  solemn  fact.  I  say  this  for  the  information  of  my 
foreign  readers  who  have  been  accustomed  to  think  America 
free. 

However,  this  magazine  is  published  to  advertise  the 
theories  of  Socialism,  and  that  being  its  primary  object,  I  re- 
gard any  honorable  means  justified  to  attain  my  end. 


The  Trust  Overshadows  All  Issues.  349 

One  of  those  means  is  the  use  of  people  who  will  help  it 
along  because  it  gives  voice  to  their  ideas  as  to  the  practicabil- 
ity and  desirability  of  Public  Ownership,  of  some  Public 
Utilities. 

I  consider  any  movement  toward  nationalization  of  in- 
dustry an  unmixed  good,  and  will  do  all  I  can  to  push  it  along 
without  qualification. 

I  regard  every  step  taken  in  that  direction  in  the  United 
States  as  of  almost  certain  good  to  the  people,  and  in  any 
case,  of  great  value  as  an  object  lesson  in  the  practicability  of 
complete  Socialism.  I  say  this,  too,  after  full  experience  of 
the  brutalities  that  may  exist  from  a  Post  Office  owned  and 
operated  by  the  People. 

I  say,  frankly,  however,  to  my  Public  Ownership  friends, 
that  I  do  not  look  for  any  measure  of  success  from  their  pro- 
gram simply  because  I  do  not  think  the  people  generally  will 
move  until  an  unemployed  problem  forces  them  to  move,  and 
that  when  this  occurs  no  measure  of  Public  Ownership  will 
be  of  any  avail  short  of  complete  Public  Ownership  of  All  the 
Means  of  Production  and  Distribution,  and  this  program 
necessarily  carries  with  it  the  introduction  of  the  Co-opera- 
tive Commonwealth. 


350  Wilshire   Editorials. 


A  HEART-TO-HEART  TALK 

THE  CITY  OF  CLEVELAND 

mayor's  office 

Tom  L.  Johnson,  mayor 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  1,  1902. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Wilshire: — 

After  the  thundering  challenge  of  last  year  I  was  agreeably  sur- 
prised to  receive  your  very  warm  letter  of  the  29th  ult.  and  am 
answering  it  in  the  same  kindly  spirit. 

I  haven't  the  slightest  doubt  of  your  earnestness  and  sincerity 
in  advocating  the  Socialist  program.  I  don't  agree,  however,  with 
the  Socialistic  doctrine  which  seeks  to  destroy  competition.  We, 
the  followers  of  Henry  George,  see  in  the  denial  of  competition 
the  evils  that  you  charge  to  one  of  Nature's  laws. 

The  ownership  of  public  utilities  we  agree  about,  but  our  rea- 
sons are  different.  I  understand  that  the  Socialists  would  have 
the  people  own  and  operate  municipal  monopolies  so  that  the 
State  should  become  the  sole  employer,  while  we  advocate  it  as 
the  means  of  destroying  monopoly  and  only  desire  the  State  to 
control  and  operate  those  utilities  in  which  competition  cannot 
well  enter. 

But  I  did  not  intend  to  write  you  this  sort  of  a  letter  when  I 
began.  I  merely  wanted,  in  a  friendly  way,  to  point  out  to  you 
that  I  did  not  write  articles;  my  field  of  usefulness  being  in  a  dif- 
ferent direction. 

While  the  Socialists  and  ourselves  are  antagonistic  in  our  ulti- 
mate aims,  a  part  of  our  program  lies  along  the  same  road.  To 
this  extent,  I  hope  we  shall  be  able  to  co-operate  and  I  always 
welcome  the  aid  of  men,  called  by  any  name,  who  desire  to  break 
down  the  power  of  privilege;  that  is,  to  take  away  the  advantages 
conferred  on  some  men  by  law  that  all  men  cannot  enjoy. 

Very  truly  yours,  Tom  L.  Johnson. 

It  is  said  to  be  hard  to  forgive  a  man  whom  you  have  in- 
sulted. I  exemplify  the  truth  of  the  rule  by  being  a  brilliant 
exception.  I  always  forgive  people  whom  I  insult,  but  I  am 
never  sure  they  will  accept  my  forgiveness,  no  matter  how 
freely  offered. 

Some  moons  since  I  insulted  Mr.  Bryan  by  offering  him 
$10,000  to  debate  with  me.  By  rights  I  should  never  have 
Bpoken  to  him  again,  but  I  did.    I  sympathized  with  him  in 


A  Heart-to-Heart  Talk.  351 

his  little  trouble  with  the  Post-office  where  they  threatened 
him  with  suppression  if  he  did  not  stop  sending  out  a  "few" 
papers  to  Congressmen  and  then  refused  to  tell  him  how 
many  constitute  a  "few."  I  never  have  any  animosity,  but 
I  must  say  that  I  feel  that  I  must  sometimes  give  to  others 
what  I  do  not  have  myself,  and  when  I  find  that  men  like  Mr. 
Bryan  and  now  Mr.  Johnson  are  broad-minded  enough  to 
forget  and  forgive  such  grievous  insults  as  they  received  from 
me,  I  feel  that  the  Brotherhood  of  Man  is  nearer  than  I  ever 
hoped — and  this  is  saying  a  good  deal  for  me. 

I  have  much  more  hope  of  converting  Mr.  Johnson  to  So- 
cialism than  I  have  Mr.  Bryan.  Not  that  he  is  more  of  an 
idealist  or  that  he  will  trim  his  political  sails  to  the  growing 
Socialistic  breezes  more  quickly,  but  because  he  is  a  business 
man,  while  Mr.  Bryan  is  a  lawyer.  Being  a  business  man,  Mr. 
Johnson  is  conversant  with  facts  in  business  life  that  to  Mr. 
Bryan  are  simply  unproven  theories.  His  business  experi- 
ence has  cultivated  and  prepared  Mr.  Johnson's  mind  for  the 
sowing  of  seed  that  would  be  entirely  wasted  upon  Mr.  Bryan. 
This  is  no  reflection  upon  Mr.  Bryan's  native  ability,  but 
simply  upon  his  misfortune  in  being  a  lawyer  rather  than  a 
business  man. 

This  is  no  joke,  let  me  say,  but  is  said  in  all  seriousness. 
I  have  had  a  great  many  talks  upon  the  Trust  question  with 
lawyers  and  business  men  and  it  has  been  almost  my  uni- 
versal experience  to  find  that  the  lawyers  simply  cannot  un- 
derstand that  the  reason  the  Trust  exists  lies  in  overproduc- 
tion. They  are  apt  to  regard  the  Trust  as  simply  a  con- 
spiracy of  capitalists,  voluntarily  formed  to  limit  production 
and  raise  prices. 

For  instance,  last  August  I  had  the  pleasure  of  talking  on 
the  Trust  problem  with  the  Hon.  Chas.  E.  Littlefield,  at  his 
home  in  Eockland,  Me.  He  it  is  who  has  been  selected  by 
President  Eoosevelt  to  formulate  new  anti-Trust  legislation 
for  the  next  sitting  of  Congress.  With  such  a  commission  one 
might  consider  Mr.  Littlefield  as  being  prepared  to  say  the 
last  word  for  the  Eoosevelt  administration  upon  the  Trust 
problem.  I  can  only  warn  the  Trusts  to  stand  from  under  if 
they  have  any  fear  of  Mr.  Littlefield  having  his  way  with 
them,  for  if  he  does  there  will  be  ructions  to  pay  and  no  mis- 
take.   However,  he  will  never  have  his  way,  for,  although  he 


352  Wilshire   Editorials. 

is  a  lawyer,  and  an  honest  one  too,  so  the  Rockland  people  all 
say,  he  will  never  be  able  to  draft  any  legislation  that  will 
ever  have  enough  force  after  it  goes  through  the  Supreme 
Court  to  hurt  any  Trust  or  make  Mr.  Morgan  lose  any  sleep. 
Mr.  Littlefield  did  not  agree  at  all  with  me  that  over-produc- 
tion was  at  base  the  cause  of  the  Trust.  He  thinks  Mr. 
Rockefeller  was  not  compelled  to  form  his  Trusts  and  that  a 
good  strong  anti-Trust  law  can  be  drawn  up  that  will  end  all 
such  pernicious  combinations. 

In  fact,  Mr.  Littlefield  has  apparently  not  learned  a  single 
lesson  from  the  industrial  history  of  the  United  States  in  the 
last  ten  or  fifteen  years. 

It  is  one  of  the  delightful  ironies  of  our  present  political 
and  industrial  situation  that  the  man  who  is  called  upon  to 
solve  the  mightiest  problem  ever  set  before  the  world  has  not 
the  first  inkling  of  the  necessity  of  public  ownership.  It  was 
rather  funny  that  when  I  suggested  public  ownership  Mr.  Lit- 
tlefield declared  that  public  ownership  of  wealth  meant  prac- 
tically the  annihilation  of  wealth.  Wealth  to  him  was  non- 
existent unless  in  the  hands  of  private  owners. 

However,  to  go  back  to  Mr.  Johnson,  as  I  have  no  doubt 
that  Mr.  Littlefield's  views  will  be  sufficiently  aired  in  a  few 
months. 

Now  Mr.  Johnson,  you  are  an  eminently  practical  business 
man.  You  want  facts  and  not  theories.  You  are  quoted  as 
saying  that  the  present  system  gives  capitalists  opportunities 
to  exploit  the  public  and  that  you  take  advantage  of  those 
opportunities  and  exploit  them,  although  at  the  same  time 
you  are  advising  the  public  not  to  be  such  fools  as  to  tolerate 
being  robbed  by  you  or  anyone  else.  This  is  a  perfectly  con- 
sistent attitude.    It's  my  own  position,  so  naturally  it  is  right. 

You  and  I  both  seek  to  abolish  special  privileges.  Our  dif- 
ference is  that  you  would  nationalize  and  municipalize  certain 
industries  and  leave  others  in  private  hands  and  then  let  com- 
petition work  its  way;  and  you  hope  that  then  labor  will  get 
its  just  rewards. 

I,  on  the  other  hand,  would  nationalize  and  municipalize 
everything  and  would  institute  co-operation  instead  of  com- 
petition. 

This  you  regard  as  Utopian. 

Brushing  aside  the  glory  of  my  ideal  of  the  future  of  so- 


A  Heart-to-Heart  Talk.  353 

ciety,  where  all  men  have  plenty  and  are  in  a  vast  brother- 
hood of  love,  and  yours,  where  they  spend  their  time — when 
they  have  any  to  spend  apart  from  your  competitive  struggle 
— in  determining  how  much  to  tax  each  other,  let  us  con- 
sider co-operation  from  the  viewpoint  of  necessity,  not  as  a 
luxury.  If  it  becomes  a  necessity,  then  of  course  you  must 
become  a  Socialist. 

Now,  Mr.  Johnson,  I  never  natter  anyone,  so  you  know, 
when  I  say  that  you  are  worthy  of  having  time  spent  upon 
your  conversion,  I  must  have  a  good  opinion  of  you.  You 
are  today  doing  a  greater  work  and  probably  a  more  useful 
work  in  your  sphere  of  directing  attention  to  the  advantages 
of  municipal  ownership  than  anyone  in  the  United  States. 
I  may  include  also  the  work  you  are  doing  for  the  equaliza- 
tion of  taxation.  However,  when  you  have  finished  there  is 
the  greater  problem  to  solve  for  the  nation  and  you  are  as 
likely  as  not  to  be  called  upon  to  have  a  great  hand  in  the 
settling  of  it. 

If  the  Democratic  Party  had  any  brains  they  would  nom- 
inate you  for  President,  but  they  haven't,  and  if  they  should 
nominate  Hill  or  Gorman  you  will  have  but  one  refuge, 
namely  the  Socialist  Party. 

I  have  in  my  hand  the  New  York  Commercial  of  today's 
date,  August  18th.  The  Commercial  is  a  good  reliable  busi- 
ness man's  paper,  and  I  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  tremendous  lesson  that  can  be  drawn  from  its  pages  of  a 
single  issue.  You  want  facts  and  not  theories  and  I  will  give 
them  to  you.  If  you  will  not  admit  that  co-operation  is  soon 
to  become  a  necessity,  you  do  admit  that  you  have  no  doubt  of 
my  sincerity  in  advocating  Socialism.  Of  course  you  have 
no  doubt  of  it.  No  more  have  I  of  Mr.  Littlefield's  honesty 
in  advocating  anti-trust  laws,  or  Mr.  Bryan  and  his  free 
silver,  or  you  and  your  single  tax.  The  question  of  the  in- 
dividual honesty  of  the  advocates  of  certain  remedies  is  unim- 
portant when  compared  to  the  honesty  of  the  remedies  them- 
selves. 

You  no  doubt  think  I  am  a  dreamer  of  dreams  that  might 
be  realized  if  all  men  were  angels.  Let  us  see  how  the  dreams 
are  being  realized  today  when  men  are  just  as  "good  devils" 
as  Mary  MacLane  could  wish  for. 

My  position  is  that  we  are  now  producing  so  much  wealth 


354  Wilshiee   Editorials. 

that  we  cannot  distribute  it  under  our  competitive  wage  sys- 
tem. Let  us  see  what  the  Commercial  says  about  the  produc- 
tion of  wealth.    I  take  this  from  its  editorial : 

The  productiveness  of  our  agricultural  industry  was  nearly 
doubled  within  a  decade.  This  fact  is  fine  evidence  of  the  energy 
and  progressiveness  of  our  farmer  population.  No  such  record 
would  have  been  possible  to  any  but  a  people  imbued  with  a 
spirit  of  modern  progress  and  determined  to  take  advantage  of 
every  discovery  in  science  that  could  add  to  the  fruitfulness  of 
their  fields.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  rigid  conservatism  having 
a  place  in  modern  industry. 

The  American  farmer  understands  this  necessity,  and  it  is  be- 
cause he  understands  it  that  he  has  made  such  a  magnificent 
record  in  the  last  decade.  He  stands  at  the  head  of  the  agricul- 
tural world,  and  he  will  continue  to  hold  this  proud  position  so 
long  as  he  stands  firmly  on  the  principle  that  has  placed  him 
there.  We  are  almost  feeding  the  whole  world  to-day.  It  is  by 
no  means  impossible  that  in  the  future  we  may  be  the  absolute 
source  of  supply  for  the  foodstuffs  of  the  globe. 

This  looks  as  though  the  United  States  should  be  able  to 
provide  for  its  people.  However,  it  appears  as  if  the  little 
fellows  in  fruit  raising  were  being  crowded  pretty  hard  by 
the  big  ones.  Single  tax  would  not  help  the  small  farmer, 
because  the  big  one,  while  he  would  pay  more  taxes,  would 
be  able  to  pay  more  owing  to  decreased  cost  through  larger 
production. 

I  quote  the  Commercial  again,  showing  this  tendency  to 
farming  on  a  big  scale : 

Hartville,  Mo.,  Aug  17. — A  contract  has  been  closed  by  a  Des 
Moines  syndicate  for  a  5,000-acre  tract  of  land  lying  north  of  here 
on  Bear  Creek  for  a  mammoth  fruit  farm.  The  syndicate  has 
contracted  with  the  Frisco  to  build  a  spur,  leaving  that  road  three 
miles  west  of  Sleeper  station,  in  Laclede  county,  and  running 
through  the  orchard. 

Orders  have  been  received  for  the  manager  to  employ  hands 
and  clear  off  1,000  acres  of  the  land,  which  the  syndicate  proposes 
to  put  in  apple  trees  next  Spring.  A  steam  stump-puller  will 
be  used  in  clearing  off  the  ground,  and  a  disk  gang  plow  operated 
by  an  engine  will,  be  used  to  plow  the  land. 

Two  thousand  additional  acres  are  to  be  ready  for  planting 
during  1904,  and  the  remaining  2,000  acres  a  year  later. 

Now,  of  course  I  could  have  made  my  facts  much  stronger 
had  I  not  determined  to  limit  them  to  the  issue  of  a  single 
day.    We  have  had  statistics  showing  how  much  more  we  are 


A  Heart-to-Heart  Talk.  355 

producing,  and  how  we  are  doing  it.  I  will  now  show  some 
of  the  results  of  this  tremendous  production.  Again  I  quote 
the  Commercial: 

San  Francisco,  Aug.  17.— In  Napa  Valley  there  are  a  great 
many  prune  orchards  in  which  the  fruit  is  falling  from  the  trees 
and  rotting  on  the  ground.  The  low  price  makes  it  hardly  worth 
while  to  attempt  to  handle  the  crop. 

So  you  see,  Mr.  Johnson,  it  is  one  thing  to  produce  and 
quite  another  thing  to  sell.  Those  poor  prune  growers  might 
have  their  land  presented  to  them  tax  free  and  yet  they  would 
go  bankrupt  because  prices  are  less  than  cost,  owing  to  over- 
production. There  is  no  use  of  your  saying  that  they  might 
have  raised  something  else,  because  if  they  had  they  would 
have  been  just  as  likely  to  have  been  swamped  by  over-pro- 
duction. There  is  not  a  single  agricultural  product  raised  in 
California  that  is  not  liable  to  over-production,  and  none  that 
have  not  in  the  past  been,  during  certain  years,  absolutely 
valueless  from  that  cause.  One  year  it  is  barley,  another  cab- 
bages. This  year  it  is  lemons  and  prunes,  two  years  ago  it 
was  oranges,  a  little  before  that  it  was  walnuts. 

You  may  think  the  farmers  ought  to  have  gone  into  some 
other  business  than  farming.  It's  all  overdone.  Even  those 
capitalists  who,  like  yourself,  were  clever  enough  to  have 
gone  into  transportation  sometimes  lose  their  heads  and  ruin 
themselves  with  competition.  Of  course  they  usually  com- 
bine; they  can  combine  easily  enough  because  they  are  few 
in  numbers.  Farmers  cannot.  Too  many  to  get  together. 
However,  sometimes  even  railway  men  fight  and  lose  money. 
Once  more  I  go  to  my  ever  faithful  Commercial : 

Houston,  Tex.,  Aug.  17.— Five  hundred  tickets  were  sold  to 
Chicago  yesterday  at  startling  prices  as  the  result  of  a  war  of 
ticket  brokers,  the  outgrowth  of  the  fight  of  the  Missouri,  Kan- 
sas &  Texas,  the  International  &  Great  Northern,  the  Cotton 
Belt  and  the  Santa  Fe  for  Northern  passenger  business. 

The  lowest  rate  before  yesterday  was  $18.00  for  the  round  trip. 
One  broker  cut  it  to  $8.00.  Another  broker  at  once  cut  it  to 
$4.00.  Yet  another  announced  Houston  to  'Chicago,  30  cents; 
Houston  to  St.  Louis,  20  cents;  Houston  to  Kansas  City,  10  cents. 

Another  met  the  cut  and  offered  a  $5.00  box  of  cigars  with 
each  ticket. 

But  it  is  not  the  war  of  the  capitalists  that  I  am  counting 
upon  to  cause  over-production.    It  is  the  war  between  work- 


356  Wilshire   Editorials. 

ingmen  to  get  a  job  that  will  do  the  trick.  The  capitalists 
soon  get  over  their  foolish  disposition  to  fight,  and  form  a 
combine,  as  you  will  see  once  again  in  our  Commercial: 

Chicago,  Aug.  17.— Following  the  International  Harvester  Co.'s 
public  declaration  that  economy  in  the  manufacture  and  distri- 
bution of  agricultural  machinery  was  the  motive  for  effecting 
the  $120,000,000  merger,  several  of  the  Chicago  companies  in  the 
combine  have  issued  letters  to  their  agents  throughout  the  coun- 
try ordering  a  reduction  of  about  three-fourths  in  the  number  of 
employees  representing  them  in  the  field.  The  other  companies 
in  the  combine  are  preparing  to  follow  their  example.  Ten  thou- 
sand men  in  all  are  expected  to  lose  their  jobs. 

The  men  whose  services  are  to  be  dispensed  with  are  the  can- 
vassers and  traveling  salesmen,  whose  work  has  been  to  solicit 
orders  from  small  dealers  and  farmers.  The  reduction  is  also 
expected  to  lessen  materially  the  volume  of  correspondence  and 
thus  render  unnecessary  the  employment  of  as  large  an  office 
force  as  heretofore. 

But  you  will  also  notice  that  at  the  very  same  time  it  gives 
a  notice  of  a  cessation  of  war  between  the  capitalists  it  shows 
how  by  the  discharge  of  ten  thousand  employees  or  more  that 
the  war  between  workingmen  redoubles  in  fury.  If  this  item 
is  not  sufficient  to  show  you,  Mr.  Johnson,  that  we  can  have  a 
great  production  and  yet  have  it  neither  benefit  the  farmer 
who  raises  prunes  nor  the  workingman  who  makes  farm  ma- 
chinery, possibly  this  interesting  little  item  may  awaken  your 
interest.    Again  from  the  Commercial: 

Chicago,  Aug.  17.— The  employees  of  the  First  National  Bank 
are  said  to  be  in  revolt  because  the  bank  has  a  rule  which  pro- 
hibits employees  from  marrying  until  they  receive  a  salary  of  at 
least  $1,000  a  year.  This  obstacle  is  said  to  have  barred  the  way 
to  maiy  weddings  recently.  The  bank  officials  deny  the  existence 
of  the  rule,  but  employees  say  that  matrimony  on  less  than  $1,000 
a  year  is  almost  certain  to  result  in  dismissal.  An  open  protest 
was  made  and  a  strike  was  threatened  yesterday. 

Now  you  know  pretty  well,  Mr.  Johnson,  that  a  thousand 
dollars  is  very  little  for  a  bank  clerk  to  keep  a  family  on.  He 
must  for  the  sake  of  the  good  name  of  the  bank  dress  himself 
fairly  well,  and  by  the  time  he  feeds  himself  there  is  very  lit- 
tle left  for  the  family.  The  bank  doesn't  want  a  lot  of  shabby 
looking  half-starved  clerks  in  its  palace  of  marble  and  brass 
rails.  It's  much  cheaper  to  make  a  rule  of  firing  a  clerk  that 
enters  a  course  of  starving  himself  by  getting  married  than 


A  Heart-to-Heart  Talk.  357 

it  is  to  raise  his  salary.  There  are  plenty  of  men  who  will  be 
glad  to  take  the  $1,000  and  stay  single.  But  it  is  this  very 
competition  that  keeps  the  clerks  and  workingmen  generally 
down  to  the  point  where  they  can't  even  buy  prunes. 

It  seems  to  me  I  have  shown  pretty  well  by  my  facts  from 
one  issue  of  the  Commercial  the  cause  of  over-production  and 
the  necessity  of  the  Trust,  and  I  have  at  the  same  time  shown 
how  the  Trust  does  not  in  the  least  prevent  an  unemployed 
problem,  although  it  may  for  the  time  being  solve  the  problem 
of  the  capitalist  of  how  to  avoid  bankruptcy. 

But  while  there  is  so  much  food  in  the  land  that  the  bank- 
ers are  unable  to  allow  their  clerks  to  marry,  it  would  seem 
from  this  item  that  the  state  can  arrange  to  feed  its  citizens 
well  enough  and  make  money  into  the  bargain. 

Jackson,  Miss.,  Aug.  17.— The  report  of  the  warden  of  the  peni- 
tentiary for  the  first  six  months  of  the  present  year  shows  that 
the  total  cash  receipts  from  the  farming  system  were  $190,436.32, 
against  expenses  amounting  to  $89,004.23,  leaving  a  net  profit 
on  the  labor  of  the  convicts  of  $101,432,05. 

Of  course,  you  may  reply  that  you  would  rather  be  a  dead 
free  man  than  a  live  convict,  but  I  don't  think  you  would,  my 
dear  Mr.  Johnson,  stoop  to  such  an  argument  to  win  applause 
from  an  unthinking  audience.  Certainly,  if  the  State  can 
take  its  most  unwilling,  ignorant  and  vicious  citizens  and  by 
co-operation  not  only  give  them  employment,  but  make 
money,  while  the  farmer  in  California,  working  under  private 
ownership  and  initiative,  loses  money,  there  is  some  argument 
for  public  ownership  of  even  that  most  difficult  business, 
farming. 

But  it  is  not  only  the  competition  between  workmen,  limit- 
ing demand  for  products,  that  is  causing  over-production.  It 
is  also  the  approaching  completion  of  the  machinery  of  pro- 
duction that  is  causing  trouble  by  throwing  men  out  of  em- 
ployment. I  showed  how  it  was  working  in  the  Harvester 
Combine.  The  machinery  necessary  to  build  new  harvesters 
is  more  than  enough,  therefore  a  combine  is  a  necessity,  and 
out  go  10,000  men.  Here  is  another  item  from  the  same  old 
mine,  the  Commercial: 

Sault  Ste.  Marie,  Mich.,  Aug  17.— The  great  water  power  canal 
of  the  Soo,  which  has  just  been  finished,  after  four  years  of  con- 


358  Wilshire   Editorials. 

struction  and  an  expenditure  of  $5,000,000,  is  regarded  by  en- 
gineers as  one  of  the  most  magnificent  works  of  its  kind  in  the 
world. 

Everything  is  now  in  readiness  for  the  final  stroke  by  which 
the  waters  of  Lake  Superior  will  be  turned  into  the  broad,  deep, 
smooth  channel,  and  soon  thereafter  the  wheels  of  immense  in- 
dustries will  begin  to  turn  under  the  power  of  the  mighty  flow. 
This  will  be  accomplished  in  a  few  days  after  the  work  shall 
have  been  thoroughly  inspected  by  F.  H.  Clergue,  president  of 
the  Michigan  Lake  Superior  Co.  Like  a  river,  220  feet  broad, 
and  deep  enough  to  float  the  biggest  vessel  that  sails  the  lakes, 
it  divides  Sault  Ste.  Marie  into  a  city  of  two  parts,  with  the  island 
portion  now  for  the  first  time  completely  surrounded  by  water. 

It  is  the  completion  of  our  great  industrial  plants  the 
world  over  that  presages  the  great  world  problem  of  the  un- 
employed. It  is  upon  this,  Mr.  Johnson,  that  I  base  my 
theory  of  the  necessity  of  public  ownership  in  order  that  we 
have  a  co-operative  wage  system  to  distribute  the  enormous 
wealth  now  being  produced. 

As  long  as  this  wealth  could  find  its  way  into  new  machin- 
ery, new  canals,  railways,  etc.,  even  though  the  laborer  did 
get  but  a  small  wage  there  was  no  over-production.  I  insist 
that  the  facts  of  today  show  that  this  method  of  disposing  of 
our  surplus  wealth  is  now  about  ended  and  that  the  laborers' 
share  of  the  product  must  be  enormously  increased  to  absorb 
the  wealth  that  formerly  went  into  the  building  of  new 
machinery. 

You  say  you  don't  write,  Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  you  read  the 
papers.  I  wish  you  would  see  if  events  are  not  shaping  them- 
selves my  way.  I  am  counting  on  you  later  on  when  this 
country  gets  into  a  tight  box  and  wants  men  to  show  her  how 
to  get  out  of  it. 

I  am  sure  you  will  not  find  that  the  capitalists  will  ever 
take  up  again  with  competition,  and  I  am  equally  sure  that 
the  laborers  are  not  going  to  starve  in  order  to  prove  the 
value  of  a  theory  that  you  single  taxers  uphold,  viz.,  the  de- 
sirability of  competition.  The  people  of  America  are  going 
to  say  that  they  want  America  for  themselves  and  that  they 
are  tired  of  giving  up  all  they  produce  to  Morgan  &  Co. 
simply  for  the  pleasure  of  starving  in  their  own  country 
because  they  produce  too  much  to  eat. 


Science  Benefits  the  Rich.  359 


SCIENCE  BENEFITS  THE  RICH 

OUR  good  clergymen  and  professors  of  political  economy 
never  weary  of  telling  us  that  Rockefeller  and  others 
have  their  great  incomes  as  the  reward  of  what  they 
have  done  for  the  public  in  organizing  the  labor  of  society. 
They  would  have  us  infer  that  a  man  is  paid  pro  rata  with 
his  ability.  They  never  give  us  a  glimmer  that  the  immense 
mass  of  humanity  are  not  paid  according  to  their  product, 
but  according  to  how  little  they  can  live  upon.  It  is  strange 
that  Mr.  Hearst,  with  all  his  zeal  for  the  toiling  masses, 
should  not  take  a  moment  of  time,  while  he  is  twirling  his 
cap  on  high  for  his  new  friend,  Parker,  and  explain  to  his 
readers  the  impossibility  of  the  working-class  ever  being  able 
to  better  their  condition  as  long  as  the  competitive  wage  sys- 
stem  lasts.  However,  Hearst  does  see  some  things  correctly. 
For  instance,  he  takes  note  that  Professor  0.  F.  Cook,  by  the 
introduction  of  the  Guatemalan  ant,  which  destroys  the  boll 
weevil,  saving  the  nation  forty  million  a  year  to  the  cotton 
planters,  will  get  nothing  for  his  labor  above  and  beyond  his 
regular  government  salary.  If  Professor  Cook  were  to  be 
paid  on  an  interest  basis  he  should  be  given  two  thousand  mil- 
lion dollars  worth  of  two  per  cent,  government  bonds.  As 
it  is  he  gets  merely  a  living,  and  when  he  gets  old  in  the 
service  he  will  be  turned  adrift  without  a  pension.  He  had 
better  been  a  Filipino  killer.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Professor 
Cook  made  his  discovery  when  working,  not  for  a  competitive 
capitalistic  corporation,  but  for  the  State.  The  same  remark 
applies  to  Professor  Koerberle,  the  man  who  discovered  a 
remedy  for  the  white  scale  bug  which  was  destroying  the 
orange  groves  of  California  some  ten  years  ago.  Koerberle 
heard  that  while  there  were  scale  bugs  in  Australia,  yet  they 
did  not  seem  to  bother  the  oranges  there. .  He  rightly  guessed 
there  must  be  some  countervailing  influence.  He  found  it  to 
be  in  a  lady  bug,  the  vedolia  cardinalis.  This  little  insect 
makes  a  business  of  eating  the  white  scale.  Koerberle  sent 
over  a  colony  of  the  Australian  lady  bugs  to  California,  and 


360  iWilshire   Editorials. 

the  little  chaps  throve  so  well  in  their  new  home  and  ate  so 
many  white  scales  that  in  a  few  months  California  was  rid 
of  the  pest.  What  Koerberle  did  for  the  orange  crop  Cook 
now  promises  to  do  for  the  cotton  crop.  These  two  men  have 
saved  the  country  millions  of  dollars,  and  yet  neither  will 
benefit  personally  to  the  extent  of  one  cent.  And  yet  I 
doubt  if  either  of  them  would  not  feel  completely 
rewarded  if  they  could  only  have  a  guarantee  from 
society  that  they  would  be  supported  while  they  could 
continue  to  make  scientific  discoveries  for  the  benefit 
of  man.  However,  it  is  also  noteworthy  that  as  long  as 
the  competitive  system  and  private  ownership  of  property 
continues  all  these  and  other  great  discoveries  do  not  inure 
to  the  benefit  of  society  as  a  whole  but  merely  to  the  rich.  The 
extinction  of  the  boll  weevil  will  not  add  much  to  the  pay  of 
the  negro  cotton  pickers,  but  it  means  much  gain  to  the  own- 
ers of  the  cotton  fields  and  much  more  gain  to  the  railways 
which  have  a  monopoly  of  the  cotton  carrying.  Similarly, 
the  extinction  of  the  orange  scale  in  California  gives  the 
railways,  which  carry  the  oranges,  the  bulk  of  the  gain.  Com- 
petition keeps  the  rate  of  wages  and  the  price  of  oranges  so 
low  that  neither  the  orange  grower  nor  the  orange  picker  get 
much  of  anything.  But  the  railways  get  ninety  cents  on 
every  box  of  oranges  that  California  exports,  and  this  price 
has  remained  uniform  for  twenty  years,  although  the  price 
of  oranges  has  decreased  from  $5  a  box  to  less  than  $1.50. 
The  railways  have  advanced  sufficiently  to  know  the  beauty 
of  combination,  while  the  ordinary  people  are  still  working 
along  on  the  old  starvation  competitive  basis.  The  evolution 
of  the  human  mind  is  a  slow  process. 


What  Is  Religion  ?  361 


WHAT  IS  RELIGION? 

AS  long  as  commercial  success  is  generally  thought  to  be 
synonymous  with  rendering  the  earth  better  adapted 
for  man,  so  long  will  commercial  success,  generally 
speaking,  be  a  pleasure  to  the  individuals  making  it.  It  is 
only  when  the  commercial  success  of  the  individual  becomes 
generally  incompatible  with  the  welfare  of  the  race  that  the 
pursuit  of  wealth  will  become  unendurable  to  those  engaged 
in  it.  It  is  freely  admitted  that  a  great  deal  of  the  business 
success  of  to-day  depends  upon  the  obstruction  rather  than 
the  production  of  wealth.  A  Trust  insures  profits  by  its  abil- 
ity to  curtail  production.  But  this  is  the  accident  of  busi- 
ness rather  than  its  normal  course.  However,  accidents  of 
this  nature  are  sure  to  become  increasingly  frequent  as,  owing 
to  the  workings  of  the  competitive  system,  the  capactiy  to 
consume  becomes  more  and  more  limited  compared  with  the 
capacity  to  produce. 

As  this  condition  of  affairs  becomes  more  and  more  evident 
it  will  come  to  pass  in  the  natural  course  of  events  that  men 
who  have  formerly  been  devoting  their  lives  to  the  accumula- 
tion of  wealth  will  have  their  energies  diverted  to  the  social- 
ization of  wealth.  That  this  is  the  case  may  be  seen  already 
in  the  actions  of  a  certain  part  of  the  capitalists  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  said  that  during  the  last  year  over  $90,000,000 
were  distributed  in  various  benefactions  and  charities,  and  it 
is  well  known  that  Mr.  Carnegie  himself  has  given  away 
nearly  a  hundred  million  dollars  to  date.  Of  course  all  this 
charity  and  philanthropy  is  only  a  feeble  indication  of  a 
social  tendency,  but  it  is  a  very  striking  one  and  should  be 
appreciated  at  its  full  value. 

That  the  individual  can  only  attain  complete  happiness  by 
being  himself  in  perfect  accord  with  his  environment  is 
axiomatic.  The  individual,  no  matter  how  harmonious  he 
may  be  in  himself,  cannot  be  happy  unless  he  has  an 
environment  which  is  harmonious. 


362  Wilshire   Editorials. 

The  boundary  lines  of  one's  environment  are  illimitable. 
A  rich  man's  house  may  be  pleasant  and  his  family  agreeable, 
but  if  his  neighborhood  is  disagreeable  it  is  evident  that  he 
is  not  in  a  favorable  position  for  happiness.  Again,  though 
he  should  make  his  entire  neighborhood  conform  to  his  ideas 
of  beauty  and  happiness,  he  would  still  have  to  consider  the 
city,  and  the  city  cannot  be  happy  if  the  nation  is  unhappy. 

The  task  of  the  man  who  sets  out  to  beautify  his  environ- 
ment can  be  ended  only  when  all  the  world  is  beautified. 

The  increasing  sensitiveness  of  the  nation  as  a  whole  was 
strikingly  shown  here  in  the  United  States  when  we  felt  our- 
selves impelled  to  demand  that  Spain  should  cease  its  perse- 
cution of  Cuba,  and  this  sentiment  was  one  of  the  factors 
which  finally  led  us  into  war.  The  same  thing  was  seen  again 
in  the  attitude  of  the  United  States  toward  Eussia  in  regard 
to  the  Kishineff  affair. 

The  happiness  of  the  individual  depends  upon  his  being 
in  harmony  with  a  harmonious  universe. 

Socialism  then  is,  in  its  higher  sense,  the  science  of  plac- 
ing man  in  harmonious  relation  to  a  perfected  universe.  Com- 
ing back  to  the  concrete,  it  is  evident  that  one  of  the  first 
steps  toward  this  is  the  harmonious  arrangement  of  things 
upon  this  earth  that  man  may  freely  participate  to  the  fullest 
extent  in  all  the  possibilities  of  his  environment.  The  So- 
cialist demands  that  the  worker  shall  have  what  he  produces 
and  sees  that  this  demand  can  only  come  through  the  in- 
stitution of  a  harmonious  industrial  system.  But  this  at- 
tained he  by  no  means  considers  that  he  has  reached  the  end. 

Socialism  is  only  a  first  step  toward  bringing  man  into  a 
more  perfect  relation  to  the  whole  universe. 

There  is  no  greater  fallacy  than  to  assume  that  because 
the  Socialist  sees  that  man  must  be  fed  before  he  can  be 
happy,  that  he  therefore  imagines  that  the  mere  feeding 
of  man  is  an  end  in  itself. 

Feeding  is  simply  a  means  to  an  end  and  that  end  is  the 
greatest  that  the  mind  of  man  can  conceive — the  perfect 
relating  of  perfected  man  to  a  perfected  universe.  The  birth 
of  the  Super-Man. 

The  striving  for  this  is  Eeligion. 

It  is  the  True  Worship  of  God. 


Steike  to  Set  Them  Free.  363 


STRIKE  TO  SET  THEM  FREE 

THE  secret  night  arrest  and  deportation  from  Colorado 
to  Idaho  of  Haywood,  Moyer  and  Pettibone,  of  the 
Western  Federation  of  Miners,  is  an  event  not  only 
of  the  greatest  interest  to  the  labor  movement  of  the  United 
States,  but  is  an  act  menacing  the  whole  fabric  of  our  present 
industrial  and  social  structure. 

Society  to-day  is  held  together  by  the  large  majority  of  the 
people  feeling  that  if  substantial  equity  is  not  done  to  every 
man  by  our  present  laws  and  customs,  at  any  rate  the  equity 
is  about  as  near  as  can  be  expected,  taking  one  thing  with 
another. 

We  Socialists  know  and  are  trying  to  make  the  people 
know,  that  the  present  economic  inequality  and  injustice  is 
the  direct  consequence  of  our  competitive  system,  and  we  are 
endeavoring  to  show  the  people  that  the  only  way  to  avoid 
inequity  is  to  establish  Socialism,  but  it  is  admittedly  a  long, 
tedious,  slow  process  to  teach  the  people  the  economics  of 
Socialism. 

But  when  it  comes  to  a  question  of  the  people  deciding 
about  life  or  death  for  a  man,  they  do  not  hesitate  a  single 
moment.  If  the  people  think  that  a  man  has  committed  a 
crime  against  an  individual  or  the  commonwealth,  there  is 
practically  a  consensus  for  his  execution.  If,  upon  the  other 
hand,  they  think  he  is  not  guilty,  they  have  no  hesitancy  in 
expressing  their  feelings  against  the  carrying  out  of  the 
sentence.  The  common  instinct  of  humanity  is  aroused  at 
the  thought  of  killing  an  innocent  man,  no  matter  who  he 
may  be.  But  when  the  man  threatened  is  one  who  is  known 
to  have  devoted  his  life  for  the  good  of  his  fellow  men,  and 
when  the  people  feel  that  not  only  has  he  committed  no  crime, 
but  that  he  is  picked  out  for  slaughter  merely  because  he  has 
devoted  himself  to  their  interests,  then  may  we  expect  a  great 
wave  of  indignant  protest  to  sweep  the  nation. 

Never  before  the  arrest  of  Haywood,  Moyer  and  Pettibone, 
has  such  a  condition  as  this  ever  been  presented  before  to  the 


364  Wilshire   Editorials. 

American  nation.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  was  probably 
when  the  Southern  Confederacy  threatened  with  execution  a 
number  of  captured  Union  officers  upon  the  false  charge  that 
they  were  spies.  This  so  aroused  the  whole  country  that 
Lincoln,  in  response,  advised  the  Confederacy  that  he  would 
execute  certain  Confederate  officers  then  held  in  captivity  by 
the  North,  if  the  South  should  carry  out  its  threat.  This 
act  of  Lincoln's  caused  the  South  to  change  its  mind,  and 
the  incident  was  over. 

The  execution  of  the  Anarchists  in  Chicago,  in  1886,  was 
similar  in  certain  respects  to  the  threatened  execution  of 
Moyer  and  Haywood.  However,  the  execution  in  1886  did 
not  excite  any  great  national  protest — first,  because  the  labor 
movement  was  not  developed  to  the  extent  that  it  is  to-day, 
and,  secondly,  because  the  men  accused  had  associated  them- 
selves, in  the  public  mind,  with  the  advocacy  of  bomb  throw- 
ing, and  the  public  felt  that  their  execution,  after  a  bomb 
throwing  actually  did  take  place,  was  only  a  matter  of  just 
retribution.  The  public  felt  that,  even  if  the  individuals 
accused  were  not  guilty,  they  had  at  any  rate  incited  some 
other  man  to  throw  the  bomb,  and  to  have  deserved  the 
hanging. 

As  I  said  before,  the  present  Haywood-Moyer-Pettibone 
case  is  upon  quite  a  different  footing.  The  labor  movement 
of  America  is  to-day  infinitely  better  organized  than  it  was 
twenty  years  ago ;  not  only  is  labor  organized,  but  the  people 
generally  have  had  so  many  striking  indictments  of  the  pres- 
ent capitalistic  system  by  such  writers  as  Lawson,  Sinclair, 
Steffens,  Phillips,  and  others,  and  have  seen  so  many  of  their 
idols  fall,  like  Senator  Depew,  and  have  been  enlightened  by 
the  insurance  investigations  as  to  how  graft  permeates 
throughout  our  whole  political  and  industrial  structure,  that 
they  no  longer  feel  that  keen  resentment  against  the  criti- 
cizers  of  the  present  system  of  society  that  they  did  at  one 
time. 

Instead  of  looking  upon  America  as  the  perfection  of  all 
things,  as  we  did  in  1886,  and  looking  upon  the  man  who 
criticized  us  as  one  quite  worthy  of  hanging,  we  now  place 
our  critics  on  the  pinnacle  of  public  esteem. 

We  no  longer  have  the  respect  for  the  courts  that  we  did 
have.     We  can  no  longer  doubt  that  they  are  corrupt  and 


Strike  to  Set  Them  Free.  365 

venial.  We  cannot  doubt  that  the  money  interest  of  the 
country  controls  them.  Twenty  years  ago  the  courts  were 
still  an  honored  institution. 

Then  the  growth  of  Socialism  has  made  such  progress  in 
twenty  years  that  thousands  of  people  are  to-day  ready  for  a 
Social  devolution,  and  eager  to  listen  to  the  words  of  a  Revo- 
lutionist, where  twenty  years  ago  they  would  have  mobbed 
him. 

The  public  protest  of  to-day  about  the  Haywood-Moyer 
affair  is  infinitely  greater  and  more  powerful  than  any  similar 
protest.  The  labor  unions  from  one  end  of  the  country  to 
the  other  are  making  the  case  of  Haywood  and  Moyer  their 
own.  At  this  writing  $200,000  have  been  subscribed  for  the 
defense  fund,  and  $1,000,000  can  be  had,  if  necessary. 

As  Gov.  Gooding,  of  Idaho,  and  his  servile  judges  push 
onward  the  trial  of  the  accused  men,  there  is  no  telling  how 
high  public  indignation  may  run.  No  one  can  say  if  this 
event  may  not  be  the  spark  which  will  inflame  the  American 
people  to  the  inevitable  Social  Revolution. 

The  greatest  crime  against  a  free  people  in  modern  history 
is  threatened  in  the  trial  of  Haywood,  Moyer  and  Pettibone 
for  murder.  No  one  who  knows  anything  about  the  character 
of  the  men  and  the  circumstances  of  the  crime,  can  believe 
that  they  were  connected  with  the  assassination  of  Gov. 
Steunenberg.  The  trial  is  merely  an  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  mine  owners  of  Idaho  and  Colorado  to  intimidate  the 
labor  unions.  They  think  that  the  hanging  of  the  leaders 
will  mean  such  a  complete  cowing  of  labor  that  capital  will 
forever  have  it  at  its  mercy.  If  the  working  class  of  America 
do  not  make  their  protest  sufficiently  vigorous  to  prevent 
the  possibility  of  this  judicial  crime,  then  the  execution  of 
Haywood  and  Moyer  may  be  the  beginning  of  a  series  of 
executions  of  labor  union  leaders  from  one  end  of  the  coun- 
try to  the  other. 

The  time  for  us  to  make  our  protest  is  now,  and  not  after 
the  men  are  in  their  coffins.  If  we  wish  to  prevent  the 
murder  of  the  men  who  have  been  fighting  for  us,  then  the 
time  for  us  to  act  is  right  here  and  now. 

Let  indignation  meetings  be  held  from  Maine  to  California. 
Let  money  be  collected.  Let  parades  be  made  in  our  great 
cities,   parades   in   such   numbers   that  their   immense   size 


366  Wilshire   Editorials. 

will  intimidate  the  capitalist  class  from  carrying  out  their 
infamous  program. 

If  the  trial  proceeds  and  if  such  a  terrible  event  as  con- 
viction by  the  servile  minions  of  plutocracy  should  follow, 
and  if  a  single  one  of  our  comrades,  Haywood,  Moyer  or 
Pettibone,  is  condemned,  it  should  be  the  signal  for  the  work- 
ing class  of  America  to  rise — let  that  mark  the  date  for  the 
beginning  of  a  Great  National  General  Strike.  Let  every 
working  man  who  has  a  heart  in  his  breast  make  a  mighty 
oath  that  not  a  wheel  shall  turn  in  this  country  from  ocean 
to  ocean  until  the  verdict  is  set  aside  and  every  one  of  the 
accused  is  set  free.  Let  our  factories  be  closed;  let  our  mills 
stop  grinding  flour,  and  our  bakeries  stop  baking  bread. 
Let  there  be  a  complete  paralysis  of  railway  transportation 
and  telegraphic  information.  Let  our  coal  mines  close,  and 
let  us  die  of  hunger  and  cold  if  necessary  to  make  our  protest 
heeded. 

The  working  class  of  this  country  have  it  in  their  power 
to  say  to  the  plutocracy,  "You  shall  starve  to  death  if  a  hair 
on  the  head  of  either  Haywood,  Moyer  or  Pettibone  is  in- 
jured." 

Let  us  show  the  world  that  the  workingmen  of  America 
are  not  so  lost  to  shame,  not  so  devoid  of  the  red  blood  of 
courage,  that  they  will  allow  one  of  their  comrades  to  suffer 
death  at  the  hands  of  their  enemies,  when  they  have  at  their 
command  a  weapon  which  will  set  them  free. 

Hurrah  for  the  General  Strike ! 


Salutatory.  36? 

(Editorials  From  "Challenge.") 

SALUTATORY 

The  Challenge  has  been  given  life  in  order  to  voice  for 
this  community  certain  thoughts  and  ideas  of  a  rad- 
ical nature  that  are  either  suppressed  altogether  in  the 
daily  press  or  are  published  in  such  a  desultory  manner  that 
those  in  sympathy  with  such  thought  suffer  from  the  lack  of 
continuity. 

The  editor  of  this  paper  thinks  that  a  crisis  in  the  political 
and  industrial  history  of  the  United  States  is  rapidly  ap- 
proaching and  that  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  the  peo- 
ple to  be  informed  of  this  fact.  Society  is  an  organism,  and 
is  governed  by  the  same  evolutionary  laws  determining  the 
development  of  other  organisms.  It  will  be  the  mission  of 
The  Challenge  to  expound  these  laws. 

Certain  people  who  consider  themselves  scientific  are  ready 
enough  to  admit  an  inevitable  and  evolutionary  change  in  so- 
ciety, but  say  that  the  changes  of  nature  are  so  slow  that  it 
will  take  thousands  of  years  before  we  can  expect  any  con- 
siderable change  in  the  form  of  our  human  society. 
*         *         * 

The  Challenge  considers  such  views  as  essentially  super- 
ficial. There  is  a  critical  point  in  all  natural  movements. 
Hydrogen  and  oxygen,  if  mixed  in  exact  proportions  of  two 
to  one  and  brought  into  contact  with  an  electric  spark,  will 
explode  and  form  water.  When  water  is  heated  to  212  de- 
grees it  boils  and  becomes  steam.  After  the  hen  sets  on  her 
eggs  three  weeeks  they  are  hatched  into  chickens.  Apparently 
in  each  of  these  cases  there  was  no  outward  change  until  the 
critical  point  was  reached  and  then  there  was  a  sudden  trans- 
formation. 

We  believe  that  society  is  approaching  its  critical  point  and 
that  a  transformation  must  ensue.  That  the  present  competi- 
tive system,  embracing  the  private  ownership  of  capital,  is 
simply  like  the  shell  of  an  egg  and  is  protecting  the  forma- 
tion of  a  new  and  better  society  within  itself.    When  this  new 


368  Wilshire   Editorials. 

society  is  ready  to  be  born  it  will  burst  its  shell  and  step  forth, 
Minerva-like,  fully  formed  and  completed. 

With  such  ideas  it  can  necessarily  be  seen  that  The  Chal- 
lenge can  hardly  be  classed  under  the  head  of  "reform"  jour- 
nals. A  "reform"  paper  is  one  that  hopes  to  make  better  pres- 
ent society  and  usually  thinks  we  simply  have  to  put  honest 
men  into  office  to  secure  this  betterment.  The  Challenge 
has  very  little  sympathy  with  such  views.  It  is  true  we  wish 
honest  men  in  public  life,  but  we  also  want  them  in  private 
life  and  are  rather  inclined  to  think  that  honesty  in  private 
life  is  probably  of  more  importance  to-day  to  the  general  pub- 
lic than  in  life.  We  look  upon  the  existing  form  of  society  as 
one  would  look  at  an  old  coat  about  to  be  discarded.  It  is  not 
worth  much  patching,  yet  as  the  time  for  changing  to  a  new 
coat  is  not  absolutely  determined  it  is  felt  that  both  decency 
and  comfort  demand  the  old  one  to  be  kept  in  as  good  order  as 
possible  until  that  new  coat  is  actually  finished  and  ready  to 
be  worn.  It  would  be  folly  to  spend  all  one's  energies  in  fix- 
ing up  the  old  at  the  expense  of  delaying  the  completion  of  a 
newer  and  infinitely  better  one. 

We  think  the  trust  is  the  significant  sign  of  the  approach- 
ing completion  of  this  new  social  coat.  We  have  no  fault  to 
find  with  the  trust  for  sending  us  this  message.  To  attempt 
to  destroy  the  trust  is  as  absurd  as  to  batter  up  one's  office 
telephone  because  unwelcome  news  comes  over  it.  All  innova- 
tions, no  matter  how  good  they  may  be,  are  usually  instinc- 
tively rejected,  when  first  proposed,  by  the  innate  conservatism 
of  mankind.  The  opposition  which  greeted  the  introduction 
of  railways  in  England  from  the  educated  country  gentlemen, 
the  cream  of  the  English  people,  was  almost  as  great  as  that 
exhibited  to-day  by  the  Chinese  Boxers  to  the  introduction  of 
railways  in  China.  The  trust  conveys  an  unwelcome  message 
to  many  of  us  simply  because  we  are  of  the  conservative 
"Boxer"  temperament  and  are  opposed  to  all  innovations  upon 
general  principles.  The  trust  is  the  most  perfect  labor-sav- 
ing device  ever  perfected  by  the  mind  of  man,  and  to  a  certain 
extent  it  is  opposed  from  jealousy  simply  because  it  is  such  a 
perfect  machine,  yet  such  a  costly  one  that  very  few  can  afford 
the  initial  outlay  to  own  one. 

We  can  imagine  a  newspaper  man  opposing  linotypes  not 


Salutatory.  369 

because  they  are  bad  in  themselves  but  because  he  is  too  poor 
to  buy  one  and  without  one  he  cannot  meet  his  competitors. 
He  will  say  that  there  will  no  longer  be  a  free  press  when  it 
first  requires  a  man  of  money  rather  than  of  brains  to  estab- 
lish a  paper.  The  small  business  man  has  long  been  crying 
out  against  corporations  on  the  same  ground,  viz. :  that  plenty 
of  capital  is  more  of  a  requisite  for  success  than  brains  in  the 
business  world.  The  trust  not  only  still  further  accentuates 
this  view,  but  has  brought  him  to  see  that  not  only  is  it  diffi- 
cult for  the  man  without  money  to  establish  himself,  but  it  is 

now  absolutely  impossible. 

*         *         * 

Business  to-day  has  assumed  the  monarchial  form.  Any 
man  may  be  president  of  the  United  States,  at  any  rate  birth 
is  not  a  barrier,  but  a  man  has  as  much  chance  of  being  the 
president  of  the  Standard  Oil  trust  as  he  has  of  being  called 
to  the  throne  of  England.  But  it  is  not  so  much  that  the 
chance  of  advancement  is  closed  by  the  appearance  of  the 
trust.  Not  only  does  the  trust  prevent  advancement,  but  it  in- 
sists upon  the  outsiders  retiring  altogether  from  the  field.  The 
trust  has  made  the  knowledge  of  the  dynamic  condition  of  in- 
dustry too  painfully  apparent  for  it  to  be  denied.  If  a  man 
could  hold  his  own  he  might  consent  to  lose  his  ambition,  but 
when  he  finds  his  very  livelihood  threatened  by  the  trust  he 
is  forced  into  active  opposition.  At  present  it  is  principally 
the  small  business  men  and  jobbers  who  are  in  opposition  to 
the  trust.  They  wish  the  trust  destroyed  and  hope  for  a  re- 
turn to  the  old  days  of  free  competition.  However,  these  are 
mostly  men  of  business  training,  and  the  simple  business  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  the  formation  and  perpetuation  of  the  trust 
are  so  convincing  to  them  that  they  are  ceasing  to  protest 
against  the  inevitable. 

The  workingman  will  be  the  next  to  feel  the  results  of  the 
economies  effected  in  demand  for  labor  by  the  trust.  At  pres- 
ent, owing  to  the  industrial  boom  in  progress,  the  trusts  are 
pushed  to  their  utmost  to  fill  orders  and  hence  there  is  no 
opportunity  to  diminish  the  use  of  labor  notwithstanding  the 
economies  effected  by  concentration.  It  has  simply  resulted 
in  a  larger  product  with  the  same  number  of  employees.  This 
conditions  of  affairs,  however,  will  only  last  as  long  as  times 
are  good.    As  soon  as  the  boom  is  over  the  trusts  will  be  com- 


370  Wilshire    Editorials. 

pelled  to  discharge  unnecessary  workers  and  then  will  be  the 
time  when  workingmen  will  begin  to  clamor  against  the  trust. 
They  will  act  the  part  of  the  dog  biting  a  stone  that  hit  him 
instead  of  going  after  the  man  who  threw  it.  To-day  the 
workingmen  as  a  class  are  rather  favorably  disposed  than 
otherwise  to  the  trust.  It  has  apparently  given  them  more 
employment  and  it  certainly  has  given  them  steadier  employ- 
ment. Let  this  condition  once  change,  and  change  it  must, 
and  there  will  no  longer  be  a  McKinley  carried  triumphantly 

to  the  presidential  chair. 

*         *        * 

The  republicans  played  their  trump  card  when  they  asked 
to  be  returned  to  power  because  they  had  made  times  good 
and  upon  the  promise  that  they  would  continue  such  good 
times  in  the  future.  They  have  frankly  accepted  the  onus 
now  of  any  bad  times  that  the  future  may  bring,  and  that  the 
future  will  bring  such  times  is  as  sure  as  fate.  Then  will  the 
republicans  be  called  to  their  accounting. 

Will  the  people  be  so  foolish  as  to  return  the  democrats  to 
power  simply  upon  a  program  of  negation?  We  think  not. 
We  think  that  the  political  party  of  the  future  must  have  an 
intelligent  constructive  program  if  it  is  to  be  successful. 


The  Old  Lady's  Ailment.  371 


THE  OLD  LADY'S  AILMENT 

THE  United  States  is  a  nation  approaching  the  throes  of 
giving  birth  to  a  new  social  system.  We  are  like  an  old 
woman  who  has  all  sorts  of  pains  and  all  sorts  of 
quacks  prescribing  for  her.  She  is  a  foolish  old  thing  with 
hardly  sense  enough  to  know  the  difference  between  a  quack 
and  a  real  physician,  and  she  does  not  yet  dare  to- make  her 
choice.  The  quacks  say  she  has  all  sorts  of  diseases  and  try 
to  force  all  sorts  of  absurd  remedies  down  her  throat.  She 
herself  does  not  know  exactly  what  ails  her,  but  she  sees  the 
quacks  don't  know  either,  although  she  takes  some  of  their 
medicine  from  time  to  time  to  get  rid  of  them.  She  hears 
with  wondering  delight  and  surprise  the  theory  of  the  Social- 
ist as  to  the  cause  of  her  ill-health,  but  she  thinks  he  must  be 
a  base  flatterer.  How  could  she,  a  miserable,  beastly,  selfish, 
ugly  old  thing,  ever  think  that  there  was  any  reason  for  her 
being  so  delicately  indisposed?  She  admits  she  rather  likes 
the  idea,  but  she  resolutely  refuses  belief.  "The  trust  certainly 
signifies,  my  dear  madam,"  says  the  Socialist  to  her,  whenever 
he  gets  a  chance  at  her  ear  between  so  many  consultants,  "that 
you  are  to  give  birth  to  Socialism."  "No,  no,"  cries  one  of  the 
quacks,  "nothing  of  the  sort.  The  trust  is  a  dangerous  for- 
eign growth,  a  tumor  that  should  be  destroyed  before  it  grows 
bigger  and  destroys  the  patient."  Then  another  quack  steps 
up  elbowing  the  first  one  aside,  and  says,  "Don't  listen  to  him, 
madam,  he  would  destroy  your  life.  The  trust  is  now  too  large 
a  body  to  take  from  you  without  causing  death.  Let  it  alone 
and  it  will  gradually  pass  away  of  itself.  It  will  die  a  nat- 
ural death."  "But,"  says  the  patient,  "that  is  just  what  you 
have  been  telling  me  for  fifteen  years,  and  I  am  getting  worse 
and  worse,  and  the  trust  bigger  every  year.  Why,  it  seems  to 
be  actually  getting  to  be  bigger  than  I  am  myself." 

"Ah,  my  dear  madam,  that  is  all  in  the  course  of  nature, 
and  anyway  it  is  rather  an  ornament,  and  a  useful  one,  too, 
to  you  than  otherwise.    Don't  be   alarmed,   you   would   not 


372  Wilshire    Editorials. 

know  what  to  do  without  it.  What  would  become  of  all  your 
life's  blood  if  it  did  not  go  to  feed  that  tumor  ?  You  would 
die  of  apoplexy.  You  would  wear  yourself  out  with  natural 
exuberance  if  you  should  rid  yourself  of  it.  It  gives  steady 
employment  to  all  your  natural  functions.  Your  heart,  your 
lungs,  even  your  brains  are  all  now  well  employed  keeping 
this  tumor  in  vigorous  health.  If  you  should  lose  it  your  heart 
would  only  have  half  time  work  demanded  of  it,  and  it  might 
stop  beating  altogether.  I  really  think  at  times,  madam,  that 
this  tumor,  which  you  are  pleased  to  call  a  'foreign  growth,' 
is  quite  as  important  to  be  kept  alive  as  you  yourself.  You 
have  burdened  yourself  so  long  with  it  that  you  are  no  longer 
beautiful  and  strong  as  you  were  when  you  were  young  and 
healthy,  and  I  don't  think  your  life  worth  so  very  much,  any- 
way. In  fact,  the  only  reason  I  can  see  for  your  living  at  all 
is  to  keep  the  tumor  alive."  The  old  woman  is  rather  shocked 
at  such  a  frank  statement  from  the  doctor,  but  he  is  the  old 
family  physician  and  she  is  so  ill  that  she  has  lost  the  courage 
to  discharge  him.  The  Socialist  doctor  is  persistent,  however, 
in  whispering  to  her  the  real  meaning  of  her  pains,  and  while 
she  does  not  take  his  advice  in  discharging  her  quacks,  she  at 
any  rate  commences  to  do  some  thinking  on  her  own  account. 
Every  day  makes  her  condition  more  and  more  critical,  and, 
strange  to  say,  it  seems  to  corroborate  both  the  theory  of  the 
quack  and  the  Socialist. 

The  trust  tumor  seems  more  and  more  an  inseperable  part 
of  the  body,  yet  it  drains  more  and  more  upon  the  resources 
of  a  physique  less  and  less  able  to  bear  the  strain.  However, 
in  such  ambiguous  cases  a  true  diagnosis  is  but  a  question  of 
time,  and  in  this  particular  case  the  Socialist  doctor  knows 
that  the  time  when  the  patient  will  determine  for  herself  what 
ails  her  is  rapidly  approaching.     Selah. 


Why  a  Peacock?  373 


WHY  A  PEACOCK? 

Ventura,  Cal.,  April  4th,  1901. 
H.  Gaylord  Wilshire: 

Dear  Sir:  Enclosed  find  order  for  $1.25,  for  which  send  The 
Challenge  to  S.  B.  Bagnall,  Oxnard,  Cal.  And  send  the  balance 
to  my  address,  Ventura,  in  subscription  postal  cards. 

Why,  in  the  name  of  all  that's  curious,  don't  you  let  up  on 
this  "Challenge  of  Debate"  business?  You  certainly  make  your- 
self absurd  and  silly  to  the  minds  of  sensible  people,  and  the 
other  fellow  don't  count. 

Get  in  and  dig  after  the  brains.  You  can  make  The  Chal- 
lenge, by  good  hard  work,  leaving  out  the  bombast,  the  greatest 
power  for  Socialism  in  the  United  States.    Truly  your  friend, 

R.  E.  Brakey. 

Now,  dear  Brake}'',  you  have  just  said  exactly  what  I  have 
been  wondering  many  other  old  time  Socialists  have  not  al- 
ready said.  It  has  been  a  matter  of  rather  delighted  surprise 
to  receive  letters  from  nearly  every  leading  Socialist  in  Amer- 
ica singing  the  same  song.  "The  Challenge  is  all  right." 
Now  you  and  I  have  been  m  "the  movement"  for  many  years. 
You  were  my  chairman  in  Ventura  over  ten  years  ago  when 
I  ran  as  a  Socialist  for  Congress  from  this  district,  and  again 
a  few  months  ago  you  acted  in  the  same  capacity.  We  both 
well  know  with  what  intense  and  rightful  jealousy  the  So- 
cialists beyond  all  other  men  scrutinize  another  Socialist's 
action  to  determine  whether  he  is  "for  himself"  or  for  "the 
Movement."  You  and  I  both  know  that  nothing  will  kill  a 
man  quicker  than  for  him  to  attempt  the  "leadership  act."  If 
we  are  consistent  in  any  one  thing.it  is  our  democracy  among 
our  own  selves.  I  know  as  well  as  you  do  that  conceit  and 
bombast  will  never  go  when  a  Socialist  talks  to  Socialists,  but 
you  must  remember  that  when  I  talk  through  The  Chal- 
lenge I  am  not  trying  to  teach  or  impress  Socialists.  They 
are  not  worth  bothering  about,  their  education  is  finished. 
They  don't  need  any  talk  from  me.  It  is  the  unconverted,  the 
Philistines,  that  I  am  thinking  about  and  talking  to.  For 
instance,  I  have  offered  Bryan  $5,000  to  debate  with  me  and 


\ 


4 


374  Wilshire    Editorials. 

another  $5,000  if  he  can  defeat  me.  Now  yon  know,  and  I 
know,  and  all  Socialists  know,  that  he  will  never  dare  accept 
my  challenge.  You  and  other  Socialists  may  be  bored  at  my 
making  it  and  more  bored  upon  my  dwelling  upon  it.  But 
remember,  other  people  are  not  bored.  They  are  either 
astounded  at  my  audacity  or  think  that  it  is  a  bluff  that  would 
never  be  made  good  if  Bryan  should  call  me.  I  admit  that 
such  a  manner  of  advertising  the  strength  of  the  Socialist 
argument  is  sensational,  is  vulgar,  is  silly  and  absurd,  as  you 
say,  but  the  question  is  not  as  to  manner,  but  the  effectiveness 
of  the  advertisement.  The  people  generally  are  a  lot  of  un- 
thinking fools.  We  both  agree  in  that  estimate  of  them.  Now 
these  fools  are  the  very  ones  who  "do  count,"  if  I  may  differ 
from  you.  If  they  had  the  brains  you  and  I  and  the  Social- 
ists, your  "sensible  people",  generally  possess,  they  would  need 
no  Challenge  or  any  other  Socialist  paper  to  awaken  them. 
They  would  go  to  the  polls  the  very  next  election  and  vote  in 
Socialism  unanimously.  I,  myself,  never  saw  a  Socialist  paper 
or  a  Socialist  book,  in  fact,  did  not  know  such  existed  when  I 
became  a  Socialist.  The  logic  of  events  was  quite  a  sufficient 
teacher  for  me.  However,  everybody  is  not  that  smart,  and 
so  for  the  fellows  that  are  not  smart  enough  to  be  Socialists 
without  teaching  you  often  must  attract  their  attention  by 
very  bizarre  methods.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  those  poor 
fanatics  who  beat  the  cymbals  in  the  Salvation  Army  use  pre- 
cisely the  same  argument  in  their  defense.  They  don't  think 
cymbals  make  delightful  music,  but  they  think  that  the  noise 
will  attract  the  attention  of  the  unregenerate  to  their  talk.  I 
recognize  well  enough  that  I  am  making  more  or  less  an  ass 
of  myself  in  making  these  bombastic  challenges.  I  don't  like 
to  make  a  fool  of  myself,  either,  any  more  than  you  do,  but  I 
think  with  the  Salvation  Army  lassie  that  the  question  of  mak- 
ing a  fool  of  yourself  should  be  quite  subsidiary  to  making  a 
success  of  beguiling  people  to  listen  to  your  tale.  In  other 
words,  in  order  to  attract  attention  to  Socialism,  I  put  on  the 
cap  and  bells  and  parade  up  and  down  the  columns  of  The 
Challenge.  However,  while  I  can  call  myself  an  ass  with 
impunity,  I  dare  anyone,  not  a  Socialist,  to  come  into  my  col- 
umns and  repeat  the  word.  He  may  find  a  helmet  underneath 
the  cap.  That  the  method  is  a  good  one  is  proven  by  results. 
We  have  had  Socialist  journals  without  number  for  years  and 


Why  a  Peacock?  375 

years  that  have  said  what  I  am  saying  quite  as  well,  and  often 
much  better,  yet  they  have  never  "caught  on"  with  the  out- 
side public.  The  Challenge,  on  the  other  hand,  is  meeting 
with  a  most  phenomenal  success,  both  among  Socialists  and 
with  rank  outsiders.  Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  me  I  can 
lay  claim  to  having  started  the  first  successful  newspaper 
ever  printed  in  the  English  language  that  has  an  avowed, 
clean  cut,  scientific,  revolutionary  Socialistic  policy.  It  is  re- 
ally remarkable  considering  the  very  ultra  position  I  take  in 
economics  and  politics  that  I  should  have  met  with  such  an 
enthusiastic  reception  from  people  who  have  never  identified 
themselves  with  us  before.  I  won't  be  so  silly  as  to  claim  that 
these  people  were  attracted  by  the  "cap  and  bells,"  but  at  any 
rate  they  were  not  repelled.  I  would  like  to  lay  off  the  bells 
forever  as  I  do  now  in  talking  to  you  behind  the  scenes,  as  it 
were,  but  I  know  the  people  generally  demand  a  costume.  You 
can  read  Hamlet  in  your  study,  but  you  like  to  see  it  better 
behind  the  footlights.  You,  dear  Brakey,  know  the  strength 
of  the  Socialist  argument,  you  need  no  pictorial  demonstra- 
tion of  it,  but  you  are  not  everybody.  There  is  many  a  man 
who  will  never  believe  that  a  Socialist  is  right  until  he  is  con- 
vinced that  nobody  dare  argue  with  him.  Such  men  are  but 
too  common.  The  man  who  relies  on  another  to  make  up  his  IV" 
mind  for  him  is  at  every  street  corner.  I  am  simply  trying 
to  graphically  impress  upon  him  a  pictorial  personal  demon- 
stration of  the  strength  of  Socialism.  In  doing  this  I  neces- 
sarily bring  myself  into  vulgar  notoriety.  It's  an  unpleasant 
sight  to  you,  my  dear  Brakey,  but  I  should  think  you  might 
have  imagination  enough  to  understand  that  it  is  not  a  pure 
delight  to  me.  Do  you  think  after  we  have  Socialism  that  I 
will  continue  to  act  the  conceited  pup  I  do  today?  I  make  a 
bargain  with  you  that  after  we  get  Socialism  I  will  never 
write  another  line  nor  make  another  speech.  I  will  work  my 
hour  a  day  digging  a  sewer  and  put  in  the  rest  of  my  time 
playing  golf. 

In  the  meantime  I  must  beg  leave  to  pursue  my  own 
methods  of  "getting  my  name  up"  so  that  a  vulgar  public 
will  be  curious  enough  to  listen  to  me. 

I  shall  continue  the  program  of  challenging  everybody  in 
sight  whom  I  consider  the  public  will  think  ought  to  meet  me. 
I  don't  challenge  Mr.  McKinley  because  it  would  be  on  the 


376  Wilshire   Editorials. 

L  face  of  it  mere  bombast,  real  bombast.  It  would  be  bombast 
because  it  would  be  so  evident  to  everyone  that  nothing  would 
draw  him  out.  It  would  be  as  absurd  to  ask  him  to  debate 
upon  trusts  as  it  would  to  ask  the  King  of  England  to  debate 
upon  royalty.  With  Mr.  Bryan  it  is  quite  different  as  it  is 
with  the  college  professors  to  whom  I  offer  double  their  reg- 
ular lecturing  fee  to  meet  me.  The  public,  when  they  hear  of 
such  challenges,  can  regard  them  as  bombastic  only  when  they 
think  I  don't  mean  what  I  say.  If  I  can  convince  the  Ameri- 
can public  that  there  is  not  a  college  professor  in  the  land  that 
will  debate  with  a  Socialist,  even  when  offered  double  his  usual 
pay,  and  that  Bryan  will  not  dare  take  $5,000  for  a  single 
night's  work,  it's  certainly  going  to  make  them  ponder  a  little. 
It  is  certainly  going  to  make  them  think  that  Socialism  is  not 
to  be  waved  aside  as  an  iridescent  dream.  The  chase  for  the 
almighty  dollar  is  too  serious  a  pursuit  in  this  country  for 
money  to  be  scorned  if  there  is  no  reason  given  for  the  scorn. 
You,  my  dear  Brakey,  know  that  Socialism  has  but  to  be  pre- 
sented properly  to  any  American  audience  to  carry  them  right 
off  their  feet.  I  never,  in  my  twelve  years'  experience  in  pub- 
lic speaking  to  promiscuous  audiences,  have  ever  failed  to 
carry  them  en  masse  with  me  as  far  as  I  could  judge  by  the 
failure  of  opposition  to  develop.  I  never  made  a  speech,  and  I 
have  made  thousands,  but  that  I  offered  my  platform  to  op- 
ponents when  I  closed,  and  I  never  have  had  a  single  accep- 
tance of  my  offer.  Now  this  is  not  owing  to  matchless  and 
surpassing  oratory.  My  friends  say  I  am  awkward,  hesitat- 
ing, cold  and  unimpassioned.  There  is  no  "cross  of  gold  on 
the  brow  of  labor"  business  about  me.  I  have  quite  an  unim- 
pressive manner  and  appearance,  in  fact  I  have  nothing  to  go 
*  on  except  Socialism.  But  that's  enough  for  any  speaker  if 
he  knows  how  to  use  it. 

It  is  a  David's  sling  which  will  enable  him  to  prevail  over 
any  Goliath  of  the  debating  world. 

Yes,  I  admit  I  am  an  editorial  peacock,  but  anyway  the 
spreading  of  the  peacock's  tail  makes  many  people  listen  to  a 
voice  that  otherwise  would  never  be  allowed  within  hearing 
distance. 

A  wise  physician  will  sugar  a  needed  pill  rather  than  have 
his  patient  refuse  it  altogether.  Now,  dear  Brakey,  I  have 
gone  at  considerable  trouble  to  take  you  behind  the  scenes  of 


Why  a  Peacock?  377 

The  Challenge  to  explain  to  you  how  I  effect  the  illusion  of 
thunder  and  lightning  for  a  gullible  public.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  say  that  no  prestidigitateur  can  hope  for  an  audience  if  he 
always  explains  his  tricks  after  his  performance.  I  now  in- 
tend going  back  once  more  into  my  bells  and  cap,  and  I  hope 
you  and  other  Socialists  will  not  force  me  to  again  change  my 
costume  outside  my  dressing  room  and  in  full  glare  of  the 
footlights.  I  am  not  acting  for  "the  like  of  you"  anyway.  If 
you  don't  like  my  play,  pass  The  Challenge  on  to  some  one 
who  will  either  take  it  as  a  comedy  or  a  tragedy,  but  don't 
waste  it  on  a  man  who  can't  laugh  at  a  joke  nor  frown  at  a 
wrong.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  being  too  "sensible."  Half 
our  life  belongs  to  the  imagination. 


378  Wilshiee   Editorials. 


A  MODERN  "ABBOT  OF  UNREASON" 

New  York,  April  30,  1901. 
Dear  Mr.  Wilshire: — 

I  send  you  a  dollar  with  pleasure,  to  pay  for  "The  Challenge." 
It  is  certainly  unique,  and  I  like  a  great  deal  in  it  immensely. 
Typographically  and  artistically  (as  well  as  in  size)  it  is  almost 
perfect.  Most,  though  by  no  means  all,  of  the  matter  you  put 
in  the  paper  is  excellent.  I  find  your  egotism,  however,  at  times 
insufferable!  And  why  do  you  fill  your  pages  with  empty  screeds 
and  fulsome  eulogies  of  capitalistic  notabilities  of  the  Earl  Rus- 
sell, W.  S.  Caine  and  James  Bryce  type!  In  addition,  all  this 
stuff  about  "America's  Economic  Supremacy"  is  merely  the 
ordinary  plutocratic  cant  and  braggadocio,  unless  it  is  clearly 
related  to  Socialism.  In  your  articles  on  this  subject  you  have 
generally  failed  to  clinch  this  point,  the  only  essential  one.  And 
what  does  the  Socialist  care  about  Bishop  Potter's  windbag 
"fraternalism"?  Everybody  knows  that  Bishop  Potter  is  a  hum- 
bug, and  his  name  should  not  appear  in  a  Socialist  paper,  without 
this  fact  appearing  there,  too.  And  why  do  you  commend  the 
"Bellamy  Review,"  which  stands  for  a  "no-party"  Socialism  and 
general  muddle-headedness  a  la  Mayor  Jones! 

You  know  that  you  would  have  done  better  and  more  solid 
work  for  the  cause  of  Socialism  if  you  had  put  your  money  into 
the  "Advance,"  and  made  one  splendid,  clear-cut  Social  Demo- 
cratic organ  for  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Now  that  I  have  had  my  growl,  I  may  add  that  you  are  really 
doing  a  great  work;  that  I  handle  with  pleasure,  and  read  with 
avidity,  every  number  of  "The  Challenge";  and  that  in  some 
respects  you  have  made  a  new  era  in  Socialist  journalism. 

Yours  fraternally, 

Leonakd  D.  Abbott. 

The  organ  of  the  single-taxers,  The  Public,  is  really  not  a 
bad  paper  considering  its  creed,  but  it's  too  modest  a  violet. 
It  plaintively  announces  that  it  lays  no  claim  to  infallibility. 
Now  this  is  where  "The  Challenge"  scores.  We  are  the 
greatest  sunflower  in  the  patch;  we  are  quite  confident  of  it, 
and  as  for  infallibility,  it  would  be  supremely  ridiculous  to 
deny  it.  Of  course  we  are,  and  we  will,  moreover,  bet  on  it. 
This  always  settles  it.    When  a  man  offers  to  bet  on  himself 


A  Modern  Abbot  of  Unreason.  379 

and  can  find  no  takers,  he  is  simply  "it."  There  can  be  no 
question  after  that.  "The  Challenge"  is  "it."  Now,  Mr. 
Leonard  D.  Abbott,  put  that  in  your  pipe  and  smoke  it. 

You  don't  like  my  egotism,  eh?  Well,  read  my  article  on 
"Why  a  Peacock."  If  you  don't  like  it  any  better  after  that, 
then  I  cannot  prescribe  anything  that  will  break  you  of  the 
habit  of  reading  "The  Challenge"  "with  avidity." 

However,  as  you  come  up  on  bended  knee  to  partake  of  the 
bread  of  knowledge  from  my  editorial  altar,  I  will  tell  you 
why  I  talk  about  my  dukes  and  other  "capitalistic  notabili- 
ties." 

Before  I  start  in  I  would  like  to  know  why  you  call  them 
"capitalistic."  Earl  Russell,  W.  S.  Caine  and  James  Bryce, 
the  three  men  you  mention,  are  none  of  them  rich,  and  cer- 
tainly none  of  them  could  be  called  capitalistic  on  the  score 
of  any  particular  proclivities.  They  are  not  Socialists,  it's 
true ;  but  simply  not  being  a  Socialist  confers  no  title  of  "cap- 
italistic notability."  I  simply  gave  a  most  condensed  account 
from  the  book  "Who's  Who?"  of  what  and  who  they  are. 
There  was  nothing  fulsome  nor  empty.  It  was  the  barest  ac- 
count possible.  However,  you  are  a  little  hot,  as  a  good  and 
true  Social  Democrat,  that  I  should  have  published  a  letter 
from  the  Earl  which  indicated  we  are  on  dining  terms.  Well, 
I  must  explain.  You  are  an  Englishman,  my  dear  Abbott, 
and  have  not  been  over  in  this  snob-ridden  country  long 
enough  to  understand  and  properly  appreciate  the  great  ad- 
vantage it  is  to  an  editor,  and  particularly  a  Socialist  editor, 
to  be  in  position  to  blow  about  having  dined  with  a  peer  of 
England.  You  see,  most  editors  feel  that  the  people  think 
them  very  small  potatoes — a  Socialist  editor  doesn't  even 
dare  assume  the  people  know  he  exists — and  if  an  editor  can 
drop  a  remark  in  a  very  casual  way  about  having  had  a  drink 
with  Lord  Montmorency,  he  feels  he  can  impress  his  auditors 
more  by  that  little  remark  than  he  could  by  a  mile  of  edi- 
torial writing.  Now,  that  was  my  idea.  Some  jackasses 
might  read  my  editorials  all  their  lives  and  wind  up  by  think- 
ing me  a  jackass  myself.  But  let  them  hear  that  Earl  Rus- 
sell had  me  to  dine  with  him  at  his  club,  and  then  I  am  re- 
ally quite  the  brainiest  man  they  happen  to  know,  you  know. 
Then  there  are  some  people  who  hold  themselves  quite  above 
the  influence  of  an  aristocracy  of  birth  but  readily  pay  defer- 


380  Wilshire   Editorials. 

ence  to  what  they  consider  the  aristocracy  of  intellect.  Now, 
to  such  people  James  Bryce,  by  virtue  of  his  authorship  of  the 
American  Commonwealth  is  a  "top-notcher."  You  know  the 
breed  of  "intellectuels"  I  refer  to — the  editors  of  The  Na- 
tion, of  The  Atlantic,  the  members  of  The  Century  Club,  the 
college  professors,  etc.  Now,  those  chaps  would  give  their 
eyes  for  a  letter  to  them  such  as  Bryce  wrote  to  me.  Again, 
I  might  write  acres  of  editorials  and  they  would  never  con- 
sider it  worth  reading  until  they  happened  to  hear  that  the 
great  James  Bryce  had  pronounced  it  worth  while.  Then 
they  would  read  "The  Challenge"  as  a  kind  of  religious  duty, 
and  as  I  try  to  make  its  editorial  columns  very  easy  to  under- 
stand, and  use  as  few  big  words  as  possible,  I  have  no  doubt 
that  some  of  them  are  commencing  to  know  what  I  say  even 
if  they  don't  quite  comprehend  what  I  mean.  Now  this  ex- 
plains how  I  sugar  my  Challenge  to  catch  both  the  aristo- 
cratic and  the  intellectual  snobs. 

The  same  argument  applies  to  my  using  Bishop  Potter  to 
catch  the  religious  snobs.  As  for  The  Bellamy  Review  and 
Mayor  Jones,  I  don't  agree  with  them,  but  I  consider  them 
useful,  nevertheless.  I  don't  care  who  speaks  a  truth,  whether 
it  is  Hearst  or  Karl  Marx.  If  it  suits  my  purpose  to  quote 
him  with  credit  I  will  do  so.  Very  often  the  fact  that 
Hearst  says  a  thing  poorly  is  of  more  use  to  me  in  a  quotation 
than  to  use  what  Marx  says  much  better.  I  have  not  the  fear 
that  some  Socialists  have  of  booming  people  who  don't  agree 
with  us  and,  in  fact,  who  spit  upon  us.  I  myself  am  uninsur- 
able. I  know,  as  well  as  you  fellows  in  New  York  do,  what 
manner  of  a  man  Hearst  is.  He  is  like  all  men;  has  several 
sides  to  his  character,  and  he  seems  to  take  great  delight  in 
exhibiting  his  meanest  sides  to  the  organized  Socialists  in 
New  York.  However,  you  will  never  hurt  him  by  ignoring 
him.  That  is  simply  following  Hadley's  policy  of  ostraciz- 
ing the  Rockefeller  family.  Some  day  I  will  show  you  how 
to  prod  Mr.  Hearst  where  he  will  feel  it.  I  have  it  up  my 
sleeve  all  right,  and  also  something  there  for  several  other  fel- 
lows who  labor  under  the  delusion  that  I  am  too  mild  a 
scoundrel  to  say  what  I  think. 

Now,  about  my  "braggadocio"  regarding  America's  econ- 
omic supremacy.  I  won't  again  lay  it  to  your  being  an  Eng- 
lishman that  you  don't  like  it,  but  you  do  need  some  excuse. 


A  Modern  Abbot  of  Unreason.  381 

In  my  January  number  I  delivered  myself  editorially  as  fol- 
lows: 

When  we  give  an  item  indicating  the  industrial  supremacy  of 
America  in  the  world's  industrial  field,  we  are  not  guilty  of 
spread-eagleism.  We  simply  wish  the  moral  to  be  drawn  that 
America  will  be  the  first  to  embrace  Socialism,  because  of  this 
industrial  supremacy.  It  means  so  much  the  greater  hiatus  be- 
tween what  the  laborer  produces  and  what  he  gets.  The  greater 
this  hiatus,  the  greater  the  surplus  for  the  capitalists,  the  greater 
the  surplus  the  greater  the  difficulty  of  profitable  investment. 
It  is  more  difficult,  first,  because  there  is  more  capital,  but  prin- 
cipally because  the  very  presence  of  this  enormous  surplus  has 
enabled  the  American  capitalist  to  perfect  his  machinery  of  pro- 
duction to  a  higher  degree  than  any  other  capitalist,  and  to  this 
extent  has  satisfied  his  wants  for  new  machinery  that  much 
the  sooner.  Machines  are  used  to  make  machines.  The  better 
machines  you  have,  the  quicker  and  better  you  can  make  more 
machines.  When  we  give  an  item  showing  the  enormous  amounts 
of  capital  lying  in  the  banks  of  America,  we  are  proving  our 
case.  When  we  show  that  American  capital  is  a  drug  on  the 
home  market,  and  is  being  lent  in  Europe,  we  are  proving  our 
case  that  the  machinery  of  production  in  America  is  so  nearly 
finished  that  there  is  no  longer  any  opportunity  for  profitable 
investment  at  home,  and  therefore  it  naturally  is  sent  abroad, 
where  machinery  has  not  been  developed  to  the  same  degree  of 
perfection. 

I  have  a  number  of  readers  of  "The  Challenge"  who  seem 
to  remember  what  I  say  from  week  to  week,  and  I  don't  wish 
to  bore  them  to  death  by  senseless  reiteration  of  the  moral 
to  my  facts.  They  know  and  you  know  that  I  don't  talk  about 
America's  economic  supremacy  in  order  to  blow  about  my 
native  land.  I  regard  the  growing  predominance  of  America 
in  the  world's  industrial  field  of  most  absorbing  interest  to 
the  scientific  Socialist  mind.  In  fact,  it  is  "the"  fact  of  facts 
to  me.  It  is  the  very  fact  that  will  usher  in  the  social  revolu- 
tion. We  are  the  Samson  of  the  world's  industrial  temple. 
We  destroy  Europe  and  in  her  fall  we  ourselves  are  buried 
in  the  ruins.  Europe  will  soon  be  bankrupted,  and  her  in- 
ability to  buy  of  us  will  bankrupt  us. 

And  finally,  you  say  that  if  I  had  given  my  support  to 
The  Advance  of  San  Francisco  instead  of  starting  "The 
Challenge,"  that  I  would  have  done  a  greater  work.  Now, 
in  the  first  place,  I  suppose  it  will  be  admitted  that  no  one 
has  done  more  for  The  Advance  financially  than  myself.    It 


382  Wilshire   Editorials. 

is  now  a  really  first-class  paper  in  every  respect.  I  can  sug- 
gest nothing  more  for  it  to  properly  fulfill  its  function  of  a 
party  organ.  It  is  set  up  on  the  "lino"  and  is  printed  on 
good  paper.  There  is  always  plenty  of  good  matter  for  a  So- 
cialist paper — that's  the  least  trouble  an  editor  encounters. 
However,  I  feel  assured  that  a  man  might  spend  a  million 
dollars  upon  a  "party  organ"  and  yet  fail  to  reach  many  peo- 
ple that  I  can  with  a  "personal"  organ  like  "The  Challenge." 
You  yourself  are  a  living  demonstration  of  my  theory.  You 
admit  you  read  "The  Challenge"  with  "avidity."  Now,  why  ? 
Simply  because  of  its  personality.  There  is  nothing  new  you 
wish  to  read  on  theory.  You  know  it  all.  The  facts  likewise 
I  give  are  stale  to  you.  The  only  thing  you  can  read  with 
"avidity"  is  the  personal  part.  Now,  consider  if  you,  with  all 
your  work  and  the  thousands  of  papers  that  pass  through 
your  hands  every  week  in  the  pursuit  of  your  profession 
of  editing  the  Literary  Digest;  I  say  if  you  neverthe- 
less, in  all  this  disgusting  surfeit  of  newspapers,  find  the 
time  to  read  "The  Challenge,"  you  must  admit  that  I  have 
a  fine  lot  of  bait  for  gudgeons. 

If  I  were  editor  of  The  Worker  or  The  Advance,  with  all 
the  money  of  Eockefeller,  and  Morgan,  too,  for  that  mat- 
ter, I  could  not  get  up  a  paper  that  you  would  read  with 
"avidity."  Your  story  is  the  universal  one.  Everybody  reads 
"The  Challenge"  with  "avidity."  I  will  bet  odds  there  is  no 
paper  of  any  description  published  today  that  is  read  so  thor- 
oughly by  its  readers  as  "The  Challenge."  You  ask  people 
who  get  it,  and  see  if  they  don't  bear  me  out.  I  know  one 
fellow  who  reads  it  with  "avidity,"  but  he  will  never  tell 
about  it.    It  is  William  J.  Bryan. 


Not  Striving  for  "Good  Form."  383 


NOT  STRIVING  FOR  "GOOD  FORM" 

IN  one  of  my  preceding  issues  I  spoke  of  the  attitude  of  a 
Socialist  pressing  forward  his  own  individuality,  his 
printing  his  picture  for  instance  as  I  am  doing  upon  the 
title  page.  I  said  with  him  it  was  simply  a  question  as  to 
whether  he  was  the  better  advertising  his  article — Socialism, 
he  wished  to  draw  to  the  attention  of  the  public.  The  matter 
of  whether  he  was  in  good  form  himself  was  entirely  sec- 
ondary. It  is  not  a  question  of  principle.  It  is  simply  a  ques- 
tion of  judgment.  I  again  print  my  challenge  to  Mr.  Bryan 
for  a  debate,  and  I  confess  to  a  certain  lack  of  dignity  in  the 
manner  of  its  presentation  that  may  shock  the  more  elegant 
of  my  readers.  All  this  challenging  and  offering  a  thousand 
dollars  for  Mr.  Bryan  to  get  on  the  platform  with  me  smacks 
strongly,  possibly,  of  a  modern  Bombastes  Furioso;  but  the 
excuse  for  it  lies  in  my  belief  that  it  is  the  simplest  and  quick- 
est way  to  get  the  general  public  to  understand  that  he  must 
have  a.  very  weak  case  if  he  refuses  me  attention.  Of  course 
if,  as  it  has  been  intimated  to  me,  I  am  making  the  matter 
in  this  paper  so  largely  personal  and  so  disgustingly  egotis- 
tical, that  intelligent  people  will  refuse  to  read  it,  then  I  have 
overdone  the  matter.  However,  let  me  ask  these  people  who 
would  stickle  for  good  form  even  if  stickling  meant  the  fall  of 
a  nation,  if  they  think  that  if  I  would  gain  the  attention  of  the 
public  as  well  by  sedate  conservative  methods  as  I  do  by  the 
one  adopted? 

I  am  not  endeavoring  to  conform  to  convention.  This 
paper  is  published  for  the  one  and  single  purpose  of  drawing 
the  attention  of  the  world  to  the  social  effects  which  must  fol- 
low from  the  concentration  of  industry  in  America.  Its  mis- 
sion has  been  somewhat  simplified  from  that  announced  in  the 
first  number  some  few  months  ago.  Then  I  proposed  first  to 
draw  attention  to  the  imminence  of  important  combinations 
in  industry  and  to  convince  the  public  of  the  inevitability  not 
only  of  such  combinations,  but  of  their  result.  Since  I  began 
to  publish  this  paper  the  combinations  in  railways  and  steel 


384  Wilshire   Editorials. 

have  been  of  such  tremendous  importance  that  the  task  of 
convincing  the  public  that  such  combinations  are  to  occur  has 
been  practically  done  for  me  by  the  actual  fulfillment  of  my 
prophecy.  All  that  remains  for  me  now  is  to  show  the  logical 
inevitability  of  the  result.  xAh«i..»  *n 

The  Vatican  sagaciously  employs  an  advocatus  dmbolus  to 
paradoxically  prove  the  sanctity  of  a  candidate  for  canoniza- 
tion by  alleging  every  possible  unsamtly  episode  in  the  can- 
didate's character.  For  the  want  of  a  better  one  I  will  now 
act  as  my  own  advocatus  dmlolus,  not  so  much  to  prove  that 
I  am  a  fit  subject  for  canonization— that  goes  without  saying; 
but  that  I  am  justified  as  the  editor  of  this  paper  in  adopting 
more  or  less  spectacular  methods  in  attracting  the  attention  01 

IUs  horribly  bad  form  to  force  one's  self  upon  the  public. 
No  gentleman  would  ever  do  such  a  thing     If  the  gentleman 
should  accidentally  be  a  cog  in  the  wheel  that  performed  some 
meritorious  act  in  life,,  and  his  name  was  mentioned  in  con- 
nection therewith,  that  would  possibly  be  excused     A  gentle- 
man will  not  do  anything  simply  for  the  sake  of  being  con- 
spicuous, and  in  fact,  some  think  that  a  gentleman  should 
never  do  anything,  no  matter  how  good  it  may  be  if  it  may 
by  any  possibility  render  him  conspicuous.    To  this  1  simply 
answer  that  I  am  not  striving  to  get  up  a  reputation  of  being 
a  gentleman.    I  am  endeavoring  to  warn  the  public  of  an  im- 
pending social  and  economic  crisis.     A  gentleman  will  not 
wear  clothes  that    render   him   ridiculously   conspicuous      I 
would  willingly  wear  a  cap  and  bells  and  parade  down  a  city  s 
thoroughfare  delivering  my  message  on  the  trust  at  every 
street  corner  if  I  thought  such  a  method  would  accomplish 
mv  end     It  is  not  because  I  am  ashamed  to  make  such  an 
exhibition  of  myself  that  I  do  not  do  it.    It  is  simply  because 
I  do  not  consider  it  would  accomplish  my  purpose. 

It  is  "bad  form"  to  talk  about  one's  self  It  is  worse  than 
"bad  form"— it's  "uninteresting."  I  would  say  to  that  that  it 
depends  upon  what  you  say  about  yourself.  It  has  been  said 
that  anybody  could  write  an  interesting  autobiography  if  he 
would  tell  the  whole  story.  Now  I  do  not  Propose  to  tell  the 
whole  story  and  make  a  test  of  that  proverb,  but  I  do  mtend 
injecting  whatever  there  is  of  my  own  personality  that  in  my 

opinion  will  serve  to  elucidate  my  economic  argument.     One 


Not  Striving  for  "Good  Form/'  385 

cannot  get  away  from  one's  self.  My  own  experiences  are  of 
more  value  to  me  for  illustrative  purposes  than  any  second- 
hand ones. 

I  disarm  my  critics  by  acknowledging  the  justice  of  their 
criticisms  when  looking  from  their  own  standpoint,  but  our 
standpoints  are  different.  I  would  even  be  more  patient  with 
my  Beau  Brummels  if  the  cause  of  Socialism  as  it  is  now 
presented  to  me  would  brook  patience.  If  I  were  exploiting 
my  own  peculiar  views  as  some  have  taken  me  to  be  doing,  and 
if  these  peculiar  views  were  to  be  taken  up  at  some  distant 
time  in  the  future  after  people  had  read  The  Challenge  for 
a  century  or  so,  I  might  reconcile  myself  to  conform  to  the 
usages  of  polite  journalism. 

When  P.  T.  Barnum  intended  to  exhibit  his  circus  in  a 
town  he  knew  that  he  must  let  everyone  know  that  he  was 
coming,  and  that  he  must  let  them  know  at  once.  There 
would  be  no  profit  nor  use  in  letting  people  hear  about  his 
show  the  day  after  it  was  over. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  Barnum  had  been  a  young  doctor  in- 
tending to  settle  in  the  same  town  and  spend  the  rest  of  his 
life  there  building  up  a  regular  practice,  he  would  not  adver- 
tise his  entry  into  town  the  same  way  he  would  coming  with 
his  circus.  In  the  circus  case  he  must  let  people  know  at 
once  or  his  efforts  would  be  fruitless.  In  the  case  of  the  young 
doctor  he  had  his  life  before  him  to  do  his  advertising. 

If  Socialism  were  a  doctrine  that  depended  solely  upon  edu- 
cating people  up  to  it  and  I  had  a  life  time  to  do  it  in,  then 
the  more  sedate  and  regular  methods  of  advertising  it  might 
be  logically  used.  But  Socialism  today  is  nothing  of  the  sort. 
Socialism  is  not  only  an  inexorable  and  inevitable  necessity, 
but  it  is  a  necessity  that  is  now  about  to  burst  immediately 
upon  us. 

I  say  this  because  I  consider  the  great  transformation  scene 
in  industry  now  being  engineered  by  Pierpont  Morgan  must 
inevitably  reflect  itself  in  a  social  transformation.  How  long 
did  it  take  Morgan  to  take  over  the  great  Carnegie  steel  plant? 
About  one  short  month  after  he  made  up  his  mind  the  time 
was  ripe.  How  long  did  it  take  him  to  take  over  the  great 
railway  systems?    About  the  same  time. 

Why  should  it  take  longer  for  Uncle  Sam  to  take  over  the 
same  properties  when  he  makes  up  his  mind? 


386  Wilshire   Editorials. 

Did  not  people  who  admitted  that  some  day  or  other  there 
would  be  a  unity  of  interests  in  railways  in  this  country  al- 
ways say  that  it  would  take  years  to  accomplish  it  ?  The  best 
posted  men  said  this.  Even  shrewd  old  Uncle  Russell  Sage 
did  not  think  Morgan  was  going  to  do  it  in  such  a  jiffy. 

It  was  not  that  Morgan  was  such  a  wonderful  man.  He  is 
no  more  wonderful  than  is  the  man  who  takes  the  kettle  off 
the  fire  when  the  water  is  ready  to  boil  over.  The  point  had 
been  reached  in  railroading  when  consolidation  was  a  neces- 
sity and  he  was  at  hand  to  take  advantage  of  it.  Morgan  did 
not  create  the  conditions  which  led  to  consolidation.  He 
simply  was  a  natural  agent. 

Every  editorial  hen  coop  in  this  country  is  in  a  great  tur- 
moil of  fuss  and  feathers.  All  the  old  editorial  hens  are  cluck- 
ing in  a  most  bewildered  way  over  Morgan's  vigorous  brushing 
aside  of  their  old  saws  about  the  permanence  of  competition 
and  the  equitable  distribution  of  wealth  in  this  country.  The 
chorus  of  clucks  has  no  one  single  note  of  accord  except  that 
of  bewilderment.  Some  say  with  a  bold  front  that  if  Morgan 
keeps  up  his  career  he  will  make  the  people  actually  restless. 
Most  of  the  wiser  papers,  however,  cluck  so  unintelligently 
that  nobody  can  make  out  what  they  think  and  none  of  them 
cluck  intelligently  enough  for  us  to  see  that  the  editor  under- 
stands that  Socialism  is  an  inevitability. 

Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  The  Challenge,  I  think  that 
at  any  rate  its  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  the  trust  is  not 
easily  misunderstood.  We  may  be  wrong,  but  at  any  rate  we 
are  not  covering  up  our  meaning  in  unintelligible  clucking. 

As  to  the  question  of  good  taste  displayed  in  these  columns, 
we  think  that  that  is  quite  a  subordinate  issue.  The  main 
question  is  whether  what  we  say  is  true  or  false.  Some  men 
are  more  disturbed  at  being  accused  of  wearing  a  made  cravat 
than  they  are  of  being  called  a  liar. 


Capitalism  Beeeds  No  Horatios.  387 


CAPITALISM  BREEDS  NO  HORATIOS 

MY  experience  with  men  has  taught  me  that  in  regard 
to  the  fundamental  realities  of  life  there  is  little  dif- 
ference between  them  which  can  be  traceable  to  edu- 
cation or  environment.  Given  certain  situations  and  men 
will  act  very  much  alike,  no  matter  what  their  condition  of 
life.  If  a  vessel  is  stranded  on  a  lone  island  in  the  Pacific 
ocean,  and  the  survivors  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  their 
stay  upon  that  island  may  be  indefinitely  prolonged,  then  all 
will  set  to  work  together  to  provide  the  necessities  of  life  in 
very  much  the  same  way  and  without  much  reference  to  their 
previous  social  or  economic  condition.  The  rich  and  the  poor, 
men,  women  and  children  all  will  do  their  share,  and  if  there 
are  any  shirks  it  will  not  be  any  more  likely  to  find  them 
among  the  ones  who  were  formerly  rich  than  among  the 
poor. 

Today  if  a  poor  man  unexpectedly  falls  heir  to  a  fortune, 
he  likewise  falls  into  the  ways  of  the  rich  in  living  a  life  of 
doing  nothing  beyond  vainly  striving  to  amuse  himself,  not- 
withstanding that  before  his  windfall  his  life  may  have  been 
that  of  most  strenuous  exertion.  Men  first  do  what  they 
must;  secondly,  they  do  what  they  like,  if  they  can.  The 
poor  man  must  do  almost  everything  he  does,  the  rich  man 
has  practically  nothing  he  must  do  in  life  except  perform  cer- 
tain natural  functions.  I  say  all  this  because  some  people 
seem  to  think  that  because  a  man  is  rich,  therefore  he  neces- 
sarily is  a  very  different  sort  of  an  animal,  owing  to  his  eco- 
nomic condition.  Some  people  who,  either  poor  in  spirit,  or 
health  or  wealth  and  from  one  or  all  of  these  reasons  being 
unable  to  enjoy  life  after  the  same  manner  as  their  more  for- 
tunate brothers  are  often  inclined  to  flatter  themselves  that 
this  is  an  evidence  of  superior  virtue  on  their  part.  They  are 
like  the  wicked  old  lady  who  prided  herself  on  forsaking  vice 
when  in  reality  vice  had  forsaken  her. 

There  are  any  amount  of  men  who  don't  drink  whiskey 


388  Wilshire   Editorials. 

simply  because  their  livers  don't  allow  them  to  do  it,  and 
such  men  are  not  unusually  the  ones  who  parade  their  en- 
forced abstemiousness  as  a  great  virtue,  and  will  sometimes 
join  others  to  obtain  the  passage  of  legislation  to  prevent  the 
consumption  of  whiskey.  I  am  not  intimating  by  this  remark 
that  the  possession  of  a  disordered  liver  is  the  necessary  equip- 
ment of  a  thorough-going  prohibitionist,  as  I  readily  admit 
that  most  prohibitionists  have  healthy  livers,  but  I  must  say 
that  most  of  the  men  I  have  known  who  like  whiskey  have 
certain  fundamental  differences  in  physique  from  those  who 
do  not,  and  that  this  difference  is  inherited  and  not  acquired. 

When  one  is  aboard  ship  and  sea-sick  it  is  very  easy  to  be 
abstemious,  and  it  is  also  very  natural  to  look  with  great  dis- 
gust at  the  gross  materialism  of  some  old  sea-dog  who  prides 
himself  on  never*  missing  a  meal. 

All  the  foregoing  is  apropos  of  determining  how  the  rich 
are  going  to.  act  when  the  time  shall  arrive  for  the  transfer 
of  their  wealth  to  the  nation.  The  only  way  for  a  poor  man 
to  determine  how  they  will  act  is  to  put  himself  in  the  boots 
of  a  rich  man  and  imagine  the  revolution  is  palpably  at 
hand,  and  then  think  what  he  would  do  himself  if  he  were 
the  rich  man  in  whose  boots  he  is  standing.  Most  men  who 
have  never  had  money,  think  rich  men  have  one  grand  round 
of  pleasure;  that  the  rich  man  regards  this  world's  life  as  a 
regular  snap.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  most  of  them  regard  it  as 
a  bore.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  rich  American.  His 
whole  life  is  artificial.  He  has  no  friends  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  word,  male  or  female.  Travel  seems  a  wonderful  and 
never-ending  source  of  amusement  to  those  who  cannot  afford 
it,  but  to  those  who  can,  it  soon  loses  its  charm  when  long 
pursued.  He  makes  the  pursuit  of  pleasure  a  business,  and 
as  a  result  he  loses  the  very  end  he  aimed  at.  The  pursuit  of 
art  is  too  tedious  and  involves  too  much  hard  work  to  attract 
many  of  the  rich,  and  unless  one  does  give  it  the  labor  it  de- 
mands there  is  no  real  charm  .in  its  pursuit.  The  rich  man 
who  gives,  his  life  to  art  is  almost  anknown.  Even  the  pleas- 
ure of  children  is  marred  by  the  inevitable  frivolity  of  the 
daughters  and  the  dissipation  of  the  sons.  A  man's  pride 
in  life  is  to  have  a  noble  son.  Tell  me  the  rich  men  of 
America  who  have  sons  that  you  think  they  can  take  pride 
in.    The  rich  read  the  same  classical  literature  that  is  the 


Capitalism  Breeds  No  Horatios.  389 

common  heritage  of  all  of  us.  "Horatio  at  the  Bridge"  is 
just  as  much  a  hero  with  the  Rockefellers  and  Vanderbilts 
as  he  is  in  any  poor  family.  Regulus  is  not  the  private  hero 
of  a  class.  All  the  heroes  of  history  are  just  as  much  the 
heritage  of  the  rich  as  they  are  of  the  poor,  and  the  failure 
of  an  Astor  or  a  Morgan  to  see  any  traits  of  the  hero  in  his 
son  makes  him  feel  that  he  has  lost  just  that  much  of  the 
possibilities  of  life.  I  don't  think  Mr.  Pierpont  Morgan 
spends  many  days  in  regretting  that  conditions  do  not  favor 
young  Ponty  being  a  modern  Horatio,  but,  nevertheless,  the 
fact  that  young  Ponty  knows  it,  to  that  very  extent  weakens 
the  idea  that  either  old  or  young  Pont  will  spend  much  time 
at  any  bridge  holding  back  the  great  army  of  disinherited 
Americans  when  they  come  marching  along  to  claim  their 
own.  In  the  first  place,  neither  one  of  the  Ponts  will  think 
there  is  much  worth  fighting  for,  anyway,  and  besides  they 

will  say  that  they  will  be  d d  if  they  see  anything  in  it 

fighting  for  a  lot  of  Rockefellers,  Astors  and  Vanderbilts. 
When  Horatio  battled  at  the  bridge  he  was  not  only  a  hero, 
but  he  was  of  a  race  of  heroes,  and  was  fighting  for  heroes. 
There  were  plenty  of  Horatios  in  those  days.  Conditions 
bred  Horatios.  The  every-day  life  of  the  Roman  was  to 
exercise  at  arms  and  imagine  himself  a  hero  and  in  the 
position  that  Horatio  actually  found  himself.  Now,  old 
Ponty  never  thinks  of  such  life  for  him  or  young  Pont. 
They  fight  battles  at  the  stock  exchange,  but  that's  not 
exactly  the  same  thing  as  the  Horatio  kind  of  fighting. 

Men  do  not  change,  but  conditions  do.  The  Morgans  and 
Vanderbilts  have  nothing  to  fight  for,  and  they  have  neither 
the  desire  to  fight  themselves,  nor  have  they  anyone  who 
will  fight  for  them.  Some  of  my  enthusiastic  friends  who 
look  for  rivers  of  blood,  etc.,  when  Uncle  Sam  and  Uncle 
Ponty  swap  railroads  and  trusts  may  exhibit  courage  by 
making  up  their  minds  for  barricades,  but  they  are  exercising 
their  imaginations  more  than  their  reason.  There  is  no  man 
who  will  know  quicker  when  to  lay  down  than  Pierpont 
Morgan  or  John  D.  Rockefeller  when  the  time  comes.  They 
are  the  unbeaten  generals,  because  they  have  never  under- 
estimated their  antagonists.  When  Carnegie  saw  what  he 
was  up  against  he  laid  down  his  cards  without  a  murmur. 
Rockefeller  took  the  pot,  and  gave  Carnegie  his  I.  0.  U., 


390  Wilshire   Editorials. 

two  hundred  million  five  per  cent,  bonds.  Uncle  Sam  will 
simply  do  the  same  thing  to  Eocky  that  Eocky  himself  has 
just  done  to  old  Skibo  Castle.  I  won't  say  what  kind  of  an 
I.  0.  TJ.  Uncle  Sam  will  issue  to  Ponty,  Eocky  &  Co.,  but 
I  will  bet  my  hat  when  it  comes  to  a  show-down,  there  won't 
be  any  scrapping  over  the  terms. 


Bearding  the  Nebraska  Lion.  391 


BEARDING  THE  NEBRASKA  LION 

DEAR  Mr.  Bryan:  I  have  engaged  the  Oliver  Opera 
House  in  Lincoln,  Nebraska,  for  the  evening  of  the 
21st  inst.,  and  it  occurred  to  me  that  you  might  be 
kind  enough  to  say  you  will  be  on  hand  to  hear  me.  I  shall 
take  great  pleasure  in  reserving  a  stage  box  for  yourself  and 
family,  and,  in  fact,  would  be  only  too  delighted  if  you  would 
consent  to  be  my  chairman.  I  think  you  know  more  about 
me  than  any  one  else  in  Lincoln,  and  your  introductory  speech 
could  not  help  being  most  felicitous. 

From  Lincoln  I  am  going  on  to  the  Detroit  Conference, 
where  I  am  to  hold  forth  at  Philharmonic  Hall  upon  the 
third  of  July.  I  did  intend  having  your  successor,  Mr.  Tom 
L.  Johnson,  have  a  debate  with  me  that  evening,  but  inas- 
much as  he  is  "too  busy,"  as  you  will  see  by  his  "very  polite" 
telegram,  I  would  suggest  that  you  come  along  on  the  train 
with  me  and  hear  me  say  what  I  would  have  said  to  Tom.  I 
put  the  "very  polite"  in  inverted  commas,  not  for  the  sake  of 
irony,  for  I  wish  to  cast  no  such  undeserved  insinuation  at 
Mr.  Johnson,  but  simply  to  show  how  much  a  tenderling  like 
myself  likes  the  slightest  recognition  from  the  great  ones  of 
the  earth.  You,  Mr.  Bryan,  should  not  crush  young  patriots 
anxious  to  get  before  the  public,  like  me,  by  failing  to  answer 
their  beseeching  letters  to  you. 

Now,  I  could,  of  course,  make  a  great  flourish  of  this  com- 
ing to  Lincoln  and  bearding  you  in  your  den,  but  candidly  I 
hate  making  myself  ridiculous  to  myself.  Perhaps  you  don't 
understand  this  feeling.  I  will  explain:  If  I  talked  like 
you  do  I  would  feel  myself  a  fool,  but  at  the  same  time  I 
would  know  that  in  the  eyes  and  ears  of  many  in  my  audience 
I  would  be  the  wise  man  from  California  just  as  you  are 
thought  by  them  the  wise  man  from  Nebraska.  In  other 
words,  what  people  think  of  me  has  practically  no  effect  upon 
my  feelings  comparable  with  what  I  think  of  myself.  This, 
however,  is  true  of  all  great  artists.    I  have  heard  great  opera 


392  Wilshiee   Editorials. 

singers,  who  have  told  me  that  they  have  sung  most  wretch- 
edly certain  evenings,  yet  the  crowd  would  howl  themselves 
hoarse  with  applause  and  the  papers  next  day  would  have 
nothing  but  panegyrics,  yet  the  diva  would  have  no  satisfac- 
tion in  it  at  all.  The  only  person  worth  satisfying  is  yourself 
in  any  real  analysis  of  life. 

With  such  a  theory  you  can  see  that  I  must  regard  you  as 
of  particularly  inferior  intellect.  If  you  are  satisfying  your- 
self by  making  your  absurd  speeches,  then  very  little  satisfies 
you.  If  you  think  you  are  satisfying  your  audiences,  al- 
though you  really  believe  as  I  do,  then  you  are  acting  the  part 
of  a  hypocrite,  denying  your  soul  its  rightful  demands  for  its 
self-realization,  and  generally  starving  your  spiritual  self  and 
making  a  donkey  of  yourself.  Hence  no  matter  how  I  may 
view  your  performances,  you  can  see  that  from  my  standpoint 
you  are  living  a  very  meager  life,  a  false  life. 

Therefore,  if  I  should  blow  about  bearding  the  lion  in  his 
Nebraska  den,  I  should  feel  myself  an  ass  if  I  did  not  let 
everyone  know  that  I  really  felt  that  I  was  more  like  the  city 
scavenger  who  has  been  sent  for  to  drag  out  a  dead  mule  to 
the  crematory  than  a  gladiator  leaping  into  an  arena.  How- 
ever, what  I  think  is  not  always  what  other  people  think,  un- 
fortunately for  them,  and  therefore  I  am  going  to  Lincoln 
to  make  a  speech  in  your  Opera  House,  and  I  herewith  pres- 
ent to  you  the  freedom  of  the  house  that  evening  to  do  as  you 
please  with  it:  pack  it  with  your  friends,  take  the  platform 
yourself,  take  the  chair  yourself  or  appoint  your  own  chair- 
man, make  as  long  a  speech  as  you  like.  I  only  stipulate  that 
I  may  have  a  half-hour's  time  for  reply.  If  I  cannot  carry 
that  audience  in  your  own  town  and  under  your  own  manage- 
ment against  you,  I  will — well,  I  don't  know  what  to  say  I 
will  do,  for  no  matter  what  I  offer,  I  know  you  will  never 
accept.  A  thousand  dollars  would  be  a  mere  bagatelle  for  me 
to  give  or  you  to  take,  but  it's  yours  for  the  asking.  I  would 
give  you  almost  anything  you  might  ask.  What  do  you 
want?  Confide  to  me  your  heart's  desire.  How  would  you 
like  me  to  further  extend  that  porch  on  your  house  built  to 
receive  "visiting  statesmen"? 

Of  course,  all  this  is  insulting,  and  I  myself  feel  like  I  am 
the  donkey  kicking  the  dead  lion.  [How  does  that  suit  you?] 
However,  it's  a  foregone  conclusion  that  you  will  not  appear 


Bearding  the  Nebraska  Lion.  393 

in  any  public  function  at  the  Opera  House  on  the  21st  of 
June.  Will  you  come  privately  ?  I  dare  you  to  take  the  box 
I  offer  you.  I  dare  you  to  come  in  and  stand  behind  the 
orchestra  chairs.  I  dare  you  to  stay  in  Lincoln  town  that 
night.  I  prophesy,  and  I  have  some  regard  for  my  reputa- 
tion for  infallibility,  that  "business"  will  take  you  not  only 
out  of  town  that  night,  but  out  of  the  State  of  Nebraska.  I 
might  be  wrong,  however,  as  your  son  and  heir,  Baby  Bryan, 
might  have  the  croup  and  you  would  be  compelled  to  stay  at 
home  and  rock  the  cradle.  You  see  I  am  anticipating  your 
excuses.  I  wish  there  were  a  "man"  in  the  Democratic  party. 
There  ought  to  be  some  way  of  getting  you  into  debate.  A 
man  that  cannot  be  stung  with  an  insult,  nor  coaxed  with 
flattery,  nor  bribed  with  money,  nor  urged  by  ambition,  nor 
led  by  duty,  nor  impelled  by  honor,  is  too  great  a  curio  for  me 
to  credit  Nebraska  with  producing.  It  must  be  a  great  soil 
to  grow  such  a  wonderful  plant.  However,  Mr.  Bryan,  I 
think  you  are  "IT." 


394  Wilshike   Editorials. 


HOW  HEARST  WASTES  HIS  GOOD 
MONEY 

IT  shows  how  hard  up  the  case  against  Socialism  is  when 
Mr.  Hearst,  with  his  unlimited  millions  to  command  the 
best  talent  in  the  world  to  argue  against  it,  is  forced  to 
fall  back  on  Jim  Creelman  to  champion  competition.  Now,  I 
am  not  decrying  Jim's  talents  as  a  general  practitioner  in 
journalism,  but  when  Hearst  puts  him  up  against  writing 
upon  economics,  it  serves  more  to  illustrate  Jim's  courage  than 
his  knowledge.  Yes,  Jim  has  courage,  all  right,  and  it  is  mean 
of  Hearst  to  put  him  to  the  test  again  by  asking  him  to  take 
up  the  cudgels  against  the  Socialist.  The  last  time  I  saw  Jim 
was  on  the  roof-garden  of  the  Waldorf-Astoria,  the  summer 
of  the  Spanish  war.  Jim  and  I  and  my  old  Harvard  comrade 
Jack  Follansbee  (Jim  Keene's  nephew)  and  Jim  Keene's 
brother  were  dining  there  together.  Follansbee  and  Hearst 
are  great  cronies,  and  he  had  just  returned  from  off  Santiago, 
where  he  had  been  with  Hearst  to  see  the  scrapping  and  to 
bring  back  in  Hearst's  yacht,  Creelman,  who  had  been 
wounded  at  San  Juan  while  acting  as  a  reporter  for  Hearst. 
Jim  did  not  then  have  much  to  say  about  Socialism ;  nobody 
did,  in  fact ;  war  was  the  absorbing  topic.  Jim  had  the  dis- 
tinction of  being  the  first  man  to  get  within  the  Spanish  fort 
which  was  taken  by  assault  at  El  Caney.  It  really  was  a 
splendid  piece  of  recklessness  to  run  up  that  hill  in  a  shower 
of  bullets,  away  ahead  of  the  American  troops,  and  jump  into 
the  hostile  fort  armed  with  a  lead  pencil.  He  was  shot  in  the 
shoulder,  however,  as  a  reminder  that  not  every  Spanish 
bullet  was  made  of  wood,  and  what  with  his  wound  and  his 
fever  he  was  in  anything  but  fit  condition.  However,  all  this 
is  past,  and  evidently  he  must  think  himself  in  the  very  pink 
of  condition  to  tackle  Socialism.  I  feel  sorry  to  slaughter 
such  a  brave  fellow  and,  withal,  not  without  pretensions  in 
directions  other  than  economic.  The  cause  is  inexorable, 
however,  so  here  goes  the  guillotine.    I  will  reprieve  him  for 


How  Hearst  Wastes  His  Good  Money.  395 

a  moment  to  tell  another  story  of  our  dinner  that  is  worth 
the  telling  for  its  amusement,  although  there  is  a  hidden 
moral,  too.  Mr.  Keene,  who,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say,  is  not 
bothered  with  the  vulgar  necessity  of  considering  the  cost  of 
things,  called  up  the  waiter  after  dinner  and  told  him  to  bring 
a  certain  brand  of  cigars.  Now,  there  was  no  excuse  for  the 
waiter  not  recognizing  Keene  as  a  millionaire,  simply  by  his 
looks.  He  wears  those  peculiar  earmarks  that  a  good  diges- 
tion and  plenty  of  money  always  seem  to  impress  on  the  New 
York  variety  of  millionaires.  However,  the  waiter  was  evi- 
dently unobservant,  and  quite  probably  a  new  hand  on  the 
roof,  for  he  leaned  over  to  Keene  and,  in  a  most  audible  stage 
whisper,  said,  "Beg  pardon,  sir,  but  do  you  know  those  cigars 
will  cost  you  fifty  cents  each?" 

Now,  Mr.  Creelman,  I  have  given  you  time  to  make  your 
peace  with  the  world  while  I  went  off  into  these  diversions 
before  proceeding  to  your  execution,  and  I  hope  if  we  ever 
meet  again  across  the  Stygian  pool  I  may  make  my  peace  with 
you  by  offering  you  one  of  "them  fifty-centers,"  although  pos- 
sibly there  will  be  too  much  smoke  about  us  to  incite  us  to  the 
desire  of  augmenting  it.  However,  Jim,  we  both  have  been 
used  to  "hot  times"  on  top  the  earth,  and  it  might  make  us 
homesick  to  be  deprived  of  our  accustomed  pleasures  when 
we  go  under  it.  But  good-by,  Jim,  you  die  in  an  ignoble 
cause.  Now,  for  the  sake  of  amusing  the  public,  I  have  de- 
cided to  torture  you  to  death  with  slow  fire.  I  don't  get  many 
victims,  and  I  cannot  afford  to  waste  them  by  any  method  of 
happy  dispatch.  I  must  make  you  go  as  far  as  I  can,  for 
God  knows  when  I  will  ever  get  another  sacrificial  lamb.  I 
am  offering  $10,000  just  now  for  one,  and  can't  touch  him; 
so  if  this  price  of  mutton  is  to  keep  up,  I  will  be  forced  to 
let  Hearst  always  find  my  sheep,  like  you,  for  me,  and  then 
take  them  second-hand  like,  as  cold  victuals.  However,  Jim, 
if  you  are  well  deviled  and  hashed  fine,  I  think  the  delicate 
palates  of  my  readers  will  be  able  to  stand  it  for  once. 

I  give  you  the  first  say,  and  you  head  your  article  in  bold 
type  "The  Fallacies  of  Socialism,"  take  up  a  half  column  to 
say  nothing,  and  only  redeem  things  by  inserting  in  the  mid- 
dle of  it  a  lovely  picture  of  your  own  dear  self. 

The  war  of  the  trusts  upon  the  competitive  system  in  the 
United  States  has  at  last  directed  the  attention  of  the  country 


396  Wilshire   Editorials. 

to  State  Socialism  as  a  refuge  from  the  strangling  effects  ot 
private  monopoly. 

There  is  not  an  observant  political  leader  in  America  to-day 
who  does  not  see  the  Socialistic  idea  spreading  among  persons 
who,  five  years  ago,  were  staunch  advocates  of  the  competitive 
system  under  which  the  American  people  have  grown  and  pros- 
pered. 

By  State  Socialism  I  do  not  mean  the  movement  for  the  public 
ownership  of  street  railways,  water  systems  and  lighting  plants 
in  cities  and  towns.  These  forms  of  local  monopoly  may  be 
justified  by  considerations  that  would  not  apply  to  the  national- 
ization of  the  steel,  sugar,  oil,  tobacco,  leather  and  other  similar 
industries. 

Not  even  the  monstrous  power  of  the  billion-dollar  steel  trust 
should  frighten  American  citizens  from  continuing  the  struggle 
in  defense  of  the  competitive  system,  the  only  system  under 
which  individual  liberty  and  progress  is  possible.  It  is  the  only 
path  to  individual  and  national  safety. 

State  Socialism  is  as  unsound  as  the  trust  system.  They  are 
both  hatched  out  of  the  same  false  philosophy.  They  are  both 
enemies  of  freedom  and  progressive  civilization.  The  are  the 
most  damnable  heresies  of  the  time,  pregnant  with  endless  misery 
for  the  human  race.    They  are  steps  backward,  not  steps  forward. 

You  say  Socialism  and  trusts  are  both  hatched  out  of  the 
same  false  philosophy;  that  they  are  both  damnable  heresies 
and  are  steps  backward.  Inasmuch  as  it  would  involve  un- 
necessary discussion  as  to  connotation,  I  will  pass  over  your 
adjective  "false"  and  simply  agree  with  you  that  trusts  and 
Socialism  do  spring  from  the  same  philosophy.  But  what 
is  this  philosophy,  may  I  ask  ?  It  is  the  philosophy  of  neces- 
sity. Of  course,  Jim,  we  know  you  are  merely  a  newspaper 
man,  ready  to  write  on  any  subject,  at  so  much  per,  but  to 
make  our  discussion  seem  more  real,  I  will  assume  you  know 
something  of  the  laws  of  business  and  what  is  actually  the 
state  of  things  industrially  in  the  United  States  today.  It 
is  one  in  which  the  machinery  of  production  is  far  greater 
than  is  needed  to  supply  the  normal  demands  of  the  market. 
There  is  constantly  a  threat  of  over-production  unless  means 
are  taken  to  prevent  all  the  machinery  being  operated  that  is 
possible  of  operation.  Now  the  owners  of  this  machinery 
have  no  more  liking  to  produce  iron,  or  sugar,  etc.,  and  not 
be  able  to  sell  it  except  at  a  loss  owing  to  over-production, 
than  would  you,  Jim,  like  to  write  articles  for  Hearst  and 
get  nothing  for  them.  Business  men,  Jim,  strange  to  say, 
don't  care  any  more  about  working  simply  for  their  health 


How  Hearst  Wastes  His  Good  Money.  397 

than  do  newspaper  men.  They  are  sordid  souls  like  you, 
Jim,  and  they  want  the  dough  every  time.  Now,  since  over- 
production is  the  cause  of  their  getting  no  dough,  they  natur- 
ally have  devised  a  plan  to  prevent  it,  hence  the  trust.  The 
trust  is  primarily  a  device  to  prevent  the  production  of  goods 
beyond  what  the  market  can  absorb,  although,  secondarily, 
and  to  a  certain  extent  incidentally,  it  is  a  labor-saving  de- 
vice also,  owing  to  the  natural  economies  effected  by  produc- 
tion on  the  largest  possible  scale.  Now  you  know,  Jim,  that 
you  cannot  find  fault  with  men  for  doing  that  which  neces- 
sity compels  them  to  do,  and,  therefore,  Jim,  now  that  I  have 
explained  the  necessity  the  capitalist  had  for  the  trust,  you 
must  give  up  finding  fault  with  him  for  creating  it.  But  if 
you  forgive  the  capitalist  for  adopting  the  trust,  you  must 
logically  forgive  the  people  for  adopting  Socialism,  because 
the  same  reason,  viz.,  necessity,  will  force  the  people  to  adopt 
Socialism.  You  ask  Why?  I  will  tell  you.  The  capitalists 
have  been  hiring  a  large  part  of  the  people  making  these  very 
machines,  that  they  now  find  they  have  too  many  of.  When 
the  capitalists  form  their  trust  to  prevent  the  making  of  any 
more  machines,  they  are  simply  hanging  out  a  notice  to  those 
of  the  people  whom  they  had  formerly  been  employing  in 
making  the  machines,  that  their  labor  is  no  longer  wanted. 
Now,  then,  these  poor  devils  are  out  of  a  job,  and  the  problem 
is,  how  are  they  going  to  get  another  ?  .  You  can't  answer 
this,  Jim;  nobody  can  answer  except  a  Socialist.  The  cap- 
italists certainly  cannot,  for  have  they  not  just  told  us  that 
they  cannot  hire  them?  The  Socialist  says,  let  the  nation 
own  these  machines  and  let  these  poor  devils  who  are  out  of  a 
job  step  up  to  the  machines  and  relieve  those  fellows,  who  are 
now  operating  them,  for  half  the  time ;  everybody  would  then 
have  a  job.  You  will  naturally  say,  "Oh,  yes,  that's  very  fine, 
but  they  would  only  get  half  pay  if  they  only  worked  half 
time,  and  that  would  be  very  hard  to  live  upon."  You,  Jim, 
would  say  that  you  would  prefer  the  present  system,  under 
which,  while  there  may  be  a  lot  of  devils  who  get  nothing, 
there  are  at  least  a  few  lucky  devils  like  you  and  me  and 
Jack,  who  can  go  up  on  the  roof  of  the  Waldorf,  have  a  good 
dinner  and  top  it  with  a  cigar,  the  cost  of  the  latter  alone  be- 
ing more  than  the  poor  devil  has  for  his  whole  day's  work. 
Now,  Jim,  I  am  just  as  much  of  a  Sybarite  as  you  are.    I 


V 


398  Wilshire   Editorials. 

don't  know  whether  I  would  want  Socialism  or  not  if  I 
thought  that  the  equality  we  would  have  under  it  would  mean 
all  hands  on  not  simply  equal  rations,  but  half  rations.  I 
would  not  be  such  a  fool  as  not  to  see  that  Socialism  was  just 
as  much  an  inevitability,  all  the  same,  but  I  might  not  have 
the  ideal  to  inspire  me  to  work  for  it  that  I  have  at  present. 
I  know  that  with  even  the  present  machinery  already  exist- 
ing, that  we  can  produce  enough  to  give  everybody  the  luxu- 
ries as  well  as  the  necessities  of  life.  Simply  from  the  purely 
material  standpoint,  I  consider  that  there  is  no  man  who  will 
not  have  the  opportunity  to  enjoy  life  more  than  he  does  to- 
day. What  fun  does  Ponty  Morgan  have,  cooped  up  in  his 
glass  cage  all  day?  What  fun  does  John  D.  have?  What 
fun  does  Willy  Wally  Astor  have,  an  outcast  in  Paris  ?  The 
only  fellow,  to  my  mind,  who  can  have  any  fun  in  this  world, 
as  it  is  constituted  today,  is  a  Socialist  like  myself,  who  is 
fortunate  enough  to  have  the  brains  and  money  to  run  a  paper 
like  "The  Challenge."  I  would  not  trade  places  with  any 
man  on  earth.  The  trouble  is  that  it  is  more  or  less  a  mon- 
opolistic kind  of  a  position.  There  are  not  many  places  open 
for  such  editors,  and  a  man  to  be  happy  must  feel  that  every- 
body else  can  enjoy  life  as  much  as  he  can,  and  I  know  no- 
body can  compete  with  me,  hence  I  am  unhappy  after  all. 
HajDpiness  has  the  peculiar  faculty  of  increasing  by  division. 

First— One  great  fallacy  of  State  Socialism  is  the  idea  that 
competition  is  wasteful.  That  is  also  the  defense  of  the  trust 
system.  Nothing  is  wasteful,  nothing  is  extravagant  which  de- 
velops individual  ambition,  individual  capacity,  individual  cour- 
age or  individual  character.  Human  nature  is  so  constructed  that 
the  average  man  will  not  exert  his  full  powers  of  mind  and  body, 
will  not  bring  to  his  work  the  passionate  energy  of  which  he  may 
be  capable,  unless  he  sees  before  him  some  great  individual  prize. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  look  at  your  neighbor  to  understand  this. 
Look  at  yourself.  Is  it  not  true  that  your  greatest  efforts  have 
been  inspired  by  the  hope  of  wealth  or  power  greater  than  that 
of  your  fellow  men?  Be  honest  with  yourself.  Is  it  not  a  fact 
that  whatever  development  you  have  made  in  your  abilities  has 
been  the  direct  result  of  your  struggle  for  personal  wealth  or 
personal  influence? 

The  genius  of  Mr.  Carnegie  and  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  Mr.  Mor- 
gan was  awakened  by  the  competitive  system,  which  gave  to 
them  the  opportunities  which  they  now  deny  to  others  on  the 
ground  that  competition  is  wasteful. 

Nothing  is  wasteful  which  preserves  individual  liberty.    All  the 


How  Hearst  Wastes  His  Good  Money.  399 

wars  that  have  been  waged  for  human  freedom  since  the  world 
began  are  justified  before  God  and  man.  Even  war  is  not  waste- 
ful when  its  purpose  is  the  enlargement  of  human  rights.  Money 
and  material  count  for  nothing  against  the  development  of  the 
race. 

Now,  Jim,  dear,  we  will  start  out  with  your  firstly.  By 
the  way,  it  must  seem  funny,  Jim,  for  an  old  soldier  like  you 
to  fall  into  the  ministerial  firstly,  secondly,  etc.  You  say 
that  it's  a  great  fallacy  for  Socialists  to  think  that  competi- 
tion is  wasteful.  Now,  Socialists  are  not  the  only  fellows 
who  have  wheels  in  their  head  on  that  subject.  Of  course, 
Ponty  Morgan  and  Carnegie  have  long  ago  delivered  them- 
selves upon  the  economies  that  can  be  and  are  effected  by  co- 
operation, you  may  think  them  prejudiced,  however,  but  any- 
way they  have  the  power  just  now,  of  making  us  eliminate 
competition  whether  it  prevents  waste  or  not.  Just  as  long 
as  they  think  competition  is  wasteful  and  say  it  must  go,  you, 
Jim,  might  as  well  say  good-by  to  the  old  lady.  When  Ponty 
says  a  thing  is  to  go,  you  can  bet  it  goes,  good  or  bad.  How- 
ever, it  happens  that  a  chap  named  James  Creelman,  who  is 
held  up  as  a  great  authority  on  economics  by  Mr.  Hearst, 
also  says  competition  is  wasteful.  You  ought  to  read  your 
own  articles,  Jim,  for  at  times  you  do  speak  the  truth  with- 
out its  being  a  typographical  error.  Here  is  what  James 
Creelman  says :  "Under  the  competitive  system,  a  large  part 
of  wealth  produced  went  to  managers,  clerks,  agents  and 
other  employees  who  are  eliminated  by  the  trust  system." 
Now,  by  your  own  admission,  Jim,  you  say  that  competition, 
then,  is  wasteful,  but  you  excuse  it  by  intimating  that  the 
waste  goes  to  poor  devils  who  need  it  a  good  deal  more  than 
Rockefeller,  Morgan  &  Co.  do,  who  get  it  when  it  is  saved 
by  the  trust.  The  question  as  to  who  gets  the  saving  is 
not  to  the  point  just  now.  The  question  is,  is  competition 
wasteful,  and,  as  James  Creelman  says  it  is,  I  suppose  you, 
dear  Jim,  had  better  lay  down  and  come  into  camp.  As  to 
your  objection  to  Rocky  getting  the  saving,  I  am  with  you  in 
that,  but  I  say  that  the  best  way  is  to  let  the  saving  be  made 
for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  by  their  owning  the  trust ;  while 
you  say,  let  the  waste  continue,  in  order  to  give  people  a  job. 

The  trust,  Jimmy,  dear  boy,  is  simply  as  you  suggest  your- 
self, a  labor-saving  device ;  and  as  you  would  not  destroy  the 


400  Wilshire   Editorials. 

linotype  machines  or  trolley  cars,  why  should  you  destroy  the 
trust  ?  Of  course,  Jim,  you  know  all  this  is  a  joke,  my  ask- 
ing you  these  questions.  Hearst  simply  has  hired  you  to  write 
upon  a  certain  subject  in  a  certain  way,  and  you  are  doing  the 
best  you  can;  that's  all  any  man  can  do.  When  next  we 
meet,  we  won't  be  discussing  trusts  or  socialism.  If  I  should 
start  on  that,  you  would  say,  "For  God's  sake,  Gay,  give  me 
a  rest.    Don't  talk  shop  during  dinner." 

Second— Another  fallacy  of  State  Socialism  is  the  theory  that 
men  collectively  are  superior  to  men  individually.  The  Socialist 
in  the  United  States  to-day  tells  you  that  if  all  the  great  indus- 
tries in  the  country  were  owned  and  operated  by  the  government 
the  workers  would  be  protected  from  injustice. 

But  if  there  is  not  enough  virtue,  intelligence  and  courage  In 
the  masses  to  induce  them  to  prevent  the  evils  of  the  trust 
system  now  by  voting  out  of  office  men  or  parties  controlled  by 
the  trusts,  where  will  the  masses  get  virtue,  intelligence  and 
courage  sufficient  to  prevent  the  Rockefellers  and  Morgans  from 
dominating  the  Socialist  commonwealth?  If  the  great  leaders 
of  the  Republican  party  can  influence  and  organize  a  majority 
of  the  people  to  support  the  trust  system  at  the  polls,  what 
miracle  will  avert  similar  combinations  under  any  form  of  popu- 
lar government  that  can  be  devised? 

The  people  of  the  United  States  are  free  now,  and  have  always 
been  free  to  control  their  own  affairs.  Why  don't  they  do  it? 
Will  they  be  any  wiser  under  a  system  of  common  ownership? 

Then  you  continue,  secondly:  Socialists  make  a  mistake 
in  thinking  that  men  are  superior  collectively  to  men  indi- 
vidually. Well,  that  depends,  I  will  admit,  on  what  we  are 
talking  about.  I  think  that  men  collectively  can  probably 
run  the  railroads  of  this  country  somewhat  better  than  they 
can  individually.  You,  Jim,  are  a  great  man,  but  you  would 
hardly  attempt  to  get  out  the  JN\  Y.  Journal  all  by  yourself, 
would  you  ?  1  mean  you  would  not  go  up  into  the  Maine  for- 
ests, cut  down  the  trees,  grind  them  into  pulp,  make  the  pulp 
into  paper,  carry  the  paper  on  your  back  to  N.  Y.,  take  it 
down  into  the  cellar,  hoist  it  on  to  the  great  Hoe  presses,  turn 
the  wheels  yourself,  do  everything,  write  all  the  news,  the 
editorials,  the  cablegrams,  and  after  all  is  done,  go  out  on  the 
street  corners  and  sell  a  million  copies  a  day.  No,  Jim,  on  a 
program  of  such  a  nature  you  would  probably  admit  that  the 
Socialists  are  right  in  their  contention  that  there  are  circum- 
stances in  which  collective  labor  would  beat  out  individual 


How  Hearst  Wastes  His  Good  Money.  401 

effort.  However,  Jim,  if  it  were  a  question  of  Whistler  paint- 
ing a  picture,  the  Socialist  would  say  that  he  could  paint  it 
alone  better  than  he  could  with  ten  men  to  help  him.  I 
think  Edwin  Markham  can  write  his  poems  alone  and  un- 
aided better  than  he  could  with  an  editor  to  help  him.  You 
must  explain  yourself,  Jim,  when  you  lay  down  your  dogmas. 
You  are  not  always  and  necessarily  wrong.  Yes,  Jim,  I  quite 
agree  with  you  in  your  low  estimate  of  the  intelligence  of  the 
masses  in  not  voting  out  of  office  men  controlled  by  the  trusts. 
The  first  fellow  I  would  vote  out  of  office  would  be  Ponty 
Morgan,  and  the  next  would  be  John  D.  Kocky.  Or,  rather, 
I  would  say  to  them,  "Now,  Ponty  and  Kocky,  you  are  nice, 
bright  boys,  and  know  a  good  deal  about  trusts  and  railways ; 
more  than  anybody  I  know.  However,  you  have  had  nobody 
to  hold  you  down.  You  are  spoilt.  I  am  now  going  to  make 
a  new  rule.  You  are  to  run  the  trusts  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people  instead  of  for  yourselves.  You  are  to  clear  out  when- 
ever the  people  tell  you  to  'git/  You  are,  in  fact,  to  become 
the  servants  of  the  people  instead  of  their  masters.  I  will 
give  you  one  chance  to  keep  your  job,  simply  because  I  think 
the  man  in  the  place  who  has  already  shown  his  capacity  for 
management  should  not  be  fired  before  he  has  had  a  chance 
to  show  if  he  will  conform  to  the  new  rules.  You  lived  up 
to  the  old  competitive  rule,  all  right  enough.  You  never 
lost  a  trick.  Now,  if  you  play  the  new  game  of  co-operation 
as  well  as  you  played  the  old  one  of  competition,  you  can  hold 
your  job ;  but,  if  not,  then  the  people  will  press  the  button  and 
you  get  the  sack."  Ponty  and  Rocky  might  say  that  they  did 
not  care  to  hold  the  job  on  any  such  terms.  They  might  truly 
say  that,  inasmuch  as  at  present  their  functions  are  financial 
rather  than  industrial,  that  under  Socialism  their  experience 
would  not  be  of  much  value,  anyway.  They  have  both 
reached  the  age  limit,  so  if  they  preferred  a  pension  with  no 
work,  I  think,  Jim,  you  and  I  would  not  kick  about  letting 
them  retire  in  peace  and  play  golf  for  the  rest  of  their  lives. 

Third— Still  another  fallacy  of  the  State  Socialists  is  the  theory 
that  the  trust  system  has  demonstrated  its  right  to  live  by  its 
superior  facilities  for  producing  wealth. 

I  absolutely  deny  this.  The  individual  and  small  incorporated 
industries  of  the  United  States  produced,  relatively  in  the  same 
number  of  working  hours,  as  much  wealth  when  they  existed 


402  Wilshire    Editorials. 

separately  as  they  do  now  combined  under  single  managers. 
That  is  a  statement  that  no  well  informed  man  will  dispute. 

The  real  difference  between  the  wealth  producing  power  of 
individual  industries  is  to  be  found  in  the  profits  of  the  pro- 
prietors or  stockholders.  Under  the  competitive  system  a  large 
part  of  wealth  produced  went  to  managers,  clerks,  agents  and 
other  employees  who  are  eliminated  by  the  trust  system.  But 
the  wealth  was  produced.  It  was  simply  distributed  more  among 
the  workers.     The  trust  system  dazzles  the  public  by  total  figures. 

The  only  material  advantage  which  the  trust  system  has 
brought  to  the  United  States  is  to  be  found  in  the  growth  of  our 
export  trade,  and  that  is  an  advantage  which  must  disappear 
with  the  hostile  tariffs  which  all  the  great  commercial  nations 
are  getting  ready  to  levy  on  our  foreign  trade. 

I  will  not  dwell  upon  your  thirdly,  Jim,  because  James 
Creelman  has  disposed  of  you,  as  heretofore  related. 

Fourth — The  State  Socialist's  supreme  plea  just  now  is  that 
the  trust  system  cannot  be  controlled  or  destroyed,  and  there- 
fore the  only  thing  to  do  is  to  encourage  the  concentration  of 
industrial  wealth  until  it  has  reached  a  stage  of  national  monop- 
oly that  will  make  the  transfer  of  ownership  to  the  people  easy 
and  natural. 

If  this  were  true  I  would  be  a  State  Socialist.  But  it  is  not 
true.  It  is  a  falsehood  born  of  laziness  and  cowardice.  It  is  the 
argument  of  the  man  who  is  tired  of  the  struggle,  of  the  man 
who  shrinks  from,  the  firing  line  of  human  progress.  The  same 
man  would  have  told  you  a  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  ago 
that  it  was  useless  to  attempt  to  resist  the  authority  of  George 
the  Third. 

As  between  private  monopolies  and  public  monopolies,  I  am  in 
favor  of  public  monopolies.  To  that  extent  the  argument  of  the 
State  Socialist  is  sound.  But  national  monopolies  are  a  curse, 
only  to  be  tolerated  when  they  are  unavoidable.  A  man  has  only 
to  travel  through  France,  Italy,  Germany,  Russia  and  other 
European  countries  to  see  the  damning  effect  of  national  monopo- 
lies upon  human  endeavor  and  human  progress. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  are  free  to  change  their 
national  constitution  and  laws.  If  they  wish  to  be  rid  of  indus- 
trial monopolies  they  have  the  power  to  do  it.  It  is  absurd  to 
say  that  they  are  controlled  by  the  trusts.  How  can  the  trusts 
prevent  them  from  casting  their  ballots  for  whom  they  please? 
If  they  do  not  preserve  their  individual  liberties,  they  do  not 
deserve  freedom  and  are  incapable  of  securing  happiness  or 
safety  in  any  state,  Socialist  or  otherwise. 

As  to  your  fourthly,  I  would  say  that  you  and  that  distin- 
guished statesman,  the  Honorable  William  Jennings  Bryan, 
of  Lincoln,  Nebraska,  editor  of  the  Commoner,  Refuser  of 


How  Hearst  Wastes  His  Good  Money.  403 

$10,000  for  one  speech,  Colonel  of  the  Nebraska  Musketeers, 
etc.,  etc.,  are  the  only  two  men  on  earth  who  publicly  have  the 
temerity  to  contend  against  the  world  for  the  possibility  of 
the  destruction  of  trusts.  I  again  admire  your  courage,  Jim, 
but  it's  a  shame,  Jim,  that  you  should  be  in  such  straits  that 
you  are  forced  to  make  a  jackass  of  yourself  at  so  much  per 
from  W.  R.  Hearst.  You  would  have  been  the  man,  Jim,  a 
hundred  years  ago,  telling  us  it  was  useless  to  resist  George 
the  Third,  if  you,  today,  sincerely  are  telling  us  it  is  useless 
to  resist  Ponty  the  First.  Yes,  the  people  are  free  to  vote 
for  whom  they  please.  Just  now  they  vote  year  after  year  to 
keep  Ponty  on  his  throne,  but  some  day,  Jimmy  dear,  they 
may  vote  to  enthrone  themselves. 

Fifth— The  State  Socialist  argues  that  there  is  no  ground  upon 
which  laws  restraining  or  abolishing  private  monopolies  can 
stand  in  the  present  state  of  government.  That  is  another 
hallucination. 

It  is  a  well  recognized  principle  of  government  that  it  is  the 
supreme  right  and  duty  of  organized  society  to  preserve  the 
rights  of  each  individual  against  any  or  all  individuals. 

If  the  trust  system  takes  away  from  the  individual  American 
citizen  the  opportunity  to  compete — not  the  assurance  of  success, 
but  the  opportunity  to  engage  in  business  on  his  own  account — 
if  it  destroys  the  citizen's  hope  of  independence,  then  it  is  the 
duty  of  society,  its  highest  duty,  to  pass  laws  that  will  prevent 
the  trespass  of  corporate  wealth  upon  private  right,  to  reopen 
the  gate  of  opportunity.  No  nation  can  be  greater  than  the 
individuals  of  which  it  is  formed.  If  the  individual  is  cramped 
and  dwarfed,  if  all  incentive  to  mighty  endeavor  is  taken  from 
him,  the  nation  must  wither. 

Let  no  American  citizen  accept  or  encourage  this  Socialist 
gospel  of  sloth  and  despair.  Paternal  governments  are  for 
children,  not  for  men. 

Fifthly :  I  will  only  touch  upon  your  last  fling  at  Social- 
ism being  "paternal."  Now  the  very  best  example  of  pater- 
nalism, Jim,  is  your  own  story  of  yourself  and  your  dear  old 
daddy  on  the  farm.  You  remember,  you  had  a  disagreement 
about  milking  the  cow.  You  thought  the  old  man  might  do 
it  himself;  he  thought  otherwise.  Finally,  he  said,  "Jim,  if 
you  don't  like  things  on  this  farm,  you  can  lump  them. 
Please  remember  that  I  am  not  only  your  father,  but,  what 
is  more  to  the  point,  I  own  the  farm.  Now,  you  can  either 
get  up  at  five  o'clock  to-morrow  morning  and  milk  that  cow, 
or  you  can  get  off  the  farm."    Now,  Jim,  that  was  paternal- 


404  Wilshire   Editorials. 

ism  with  a  vengeance.  Later  on,  when  the  old  man  died  and 
you  and  your  brother  inherited  the  farm,  neither  one  of  you 
could  order  the  other  to  milk  the  cow  or  "git  off."  You  ar- 
ranged things  on  a  mutual  basis  of  justice  and  right.  Well, 
that  was  f raternalism.  Now,  today,  Jim,  old  Daddy  Morgan 
owns  this  great  American  farm,  and  you  and  I  are  living  on 
it  under  sufferance.  He  can  order  most  of  us  off  any  day  he 
gets  huffy  simply  because  his  liver  disagrees  with  him.  This 
is  the  kind  of  paternalism  that  I  and  other  Socialists  don  t 
want.  We  want  to  come  into  our  inheritance  at  once;  we 
don't  want  to  wait  till  old  Ponty  dies,  for  if  he  did  die  today, 
it  would  simplv  mean  young  Ponty  would  take  his  place. 

We  wish  to  institute,  at  once,  a  fraternal  management  and 
ownership  of  our  national  farm.  Competition,  Jim,  is  the 
"real  thing"  in  paternalism,  with  old  Ponty  as  our  dad.  So- 
cialism, Jim,  is  fraternalism  with  all  men  as  brothers  and 
nobody  as  "dad." 


A  Chance  for  Prof.  Laughlin.  405 

A  CHANCE  FOR  PROF.  LAUGHLIN 

To  J.  Lawrence  Laughlin,  Esq.,  Professor  of  Political  Econ- 
omy, University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Professor : — You  do  not  remember  me,  but  I  remem- 
ber you  all  right.  I  was  in  your  class  in  Political  Economy 
at  Harvard  University  in  1881  and  1882.  Twenty  years  ago 
seems  quite  a  time,  but  it  seems  but  yesterday  to  me  when 
you  were  up  on  your  professorial  platform  laying  down  the 
laws  of  industry  to  us  infants.  You  were  a  fine,  young, 
cock-sure  professor  in  those  days,  just  over  thirty.  I  thought 
you  a  world-beater  on  such  busted  theories  as  the  now  de- 
funct "wages  fund"  which  you  used  to  delight  to  parade 
before  our  awe-struck  eyes.  If  some  one  had  told  me  then 
that  twenty  years  later  I  would  be  the  "parader"  and  that 
you  would  be  the  "awe-struck"  one,  I  would  have  thought 
him  as  crazy  as  you  now  affect  to  think  me.  It's  really  amus- 
ing to  think  how  political  economy  was  taught  in  those  days. 
You  began  at  the  beginning  of  the  art  and  taught  as  truth  all 
the  old  played-out  theories,  and  then  the  second  year  you  had 
what  you  called  an  "advanced"  course  when  you  knocked  out 
most  of  your  first  year  theories.  Just  think  of  the  absurdity 
of  this  method;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  dear  old  Harvard, 
with  its  delightful  conservatism,  is  still  pursuing  it.  It's  like 
teaching  a  class  in  astronomy  during  the  first  year  that 
Ptolemy  was  all  right,  and  the  next  year  having  an  "ad- 
vanced" class  in  which  you  tell  them  that  Copernicus  was 
the  real  thing.  Most  men  never  heard  you  correct  your 
errors,  as  very  few  of  the  men  in  the  "polycon"  class  had 
any  inclination  to  spend  another  year  on  an  "advanced" 
course.  The  result  was  that  I  never  knew  until  years  after- 
ward that  what  I  was  taught  about  the  "wages  fund" 
was  simply  rubbish  and  that  you  knew  it  all  the  time, 
but  intended  to  correct  my  ideas  the  following  year  and 
never  did  so,  as  I  never  came  back  to  you.  Your  system  of 
teaching  political  economy  reminds  me  of  the  story  of  the 
editor  short  of  copy  and  ordering  his  reporter  to  invent  a 
"horrible  murder"  story  to  do  two  days'  issues,  the  first  day 
for  the  story  and  the  second  for  its  denial. 

Some  years  after  I  left  Harvard  I  found  out  what  a  fool 
you  had  been  making  of  me  and  wrote  you  for  explanations. 


406  Wilshire   Editorials. 

You  answered  very  crushingly  that  you  "were  happy  to  relieve 
my  anxiety  by  informing  me  that  advanced  students  were 
allowed  an  option  reading  Karl  Marx."  I  can  imagine  how 
much  good  Karl  Marx  would  do  the  poor  devils  who  would 
have  it  explained  to  them  by  such  sympathetic  "know-it- 
alls"  as  you. 

Now,  my  dear  Professor,  if  I  have  not  made  myself  safe 
by  insulting  you,  I  would  propose  we  have  a  little  test  while 
I  am  in  Chicago,  this  summer,  to  see  whether  a  Chicago 
audience  will  think  you  or  I  know  the  most  about  political 
economy.  I  will  hire  the  Auditorium  and  will  pay  you  to 
deliver  a  lecture  there  any  day  you  name.  I  will  pay  you, 
don't  fear.  I  don't  know  what  you  get  a  month  from  the 
University — about  $5,000  per  year,  I  guess.  I  have  no  doubt 
but  that  whatever  it  is,  you  spend  it  all.  It's  so  expensive 
living  in  Chicago.  Now,  suppose  I  give  you  a  chance  to  pay 
for  your  holiday  outing?  I  will  pay  you  for  one  night's  lec- 
ture an  amount  equal  to  your  whole  month's  salary,  call  it 
$500  in  round  figures.  That's  pretty  good,  is  it  not,  to  take 
down  in  a  single  night  as  much  as  you  earn  in  a  month? 
The  only  condition  I  make  is  that  you  are  to  allow  me  equal 
time  with  you,  at  appropriate  intervals  during  the  evening, 
to  explain  to  the  audience  why  I  think  you  don't  know  as 
much  as  you  think  you  do.  Your  subject  for  the  night  shall 
be  "The  Evolution  of  Monopoly  in  America,  and  the  Out- 
come." 

I  suppose  you  may  say  you  think  it  will  be  a  loss  of  personal 
dignity  for  you  to  appear  as  I  propose.  I  quite  agree  that 
before  the  evening  is  over  that  you  will  be  thoroughly  con- 
vinced that  you  have  lost  your  dignity,  for  I  would  make 
the  same  "monkey  of  you"  as  I  have  seen  you  make  of  other 
men  when  they  argued  with  you  in  the  class.  Before  the 
performance  begins  I  will  deposit  in  the  hands  of  the  chair- 
man— said  chairman  being  your  own  appointee — the  sum  of 
$1,000.  If  the  audience,  at  the  close  of  the  remarks,  votes 
that  you  have  demonstrated  to  them  that  you  know  more 
than  I  do  on  the  subject  that  you  are  paid  by  Mr.  Eockefeller 
to  teach,  then  the  chairman  is  to  hand  over  to  you  the  $1,000. 
This  means  that  you  will  get  $500  in  any  event,  and  if  you 
have  the  ability  you  think  you  have,  you  will  get  $1,000  in 
addition,  or  $1,500  in  all. 


A  Chance  for  Prof.  Laughlin.  407 

In  conclusion,  I  would  say  that  I  know  perfectly  well  that 
you  know  that  I  know  that  you  will  never  pick  up  the  gaunt- 
let- However,  there  are  people  in  this  world  who  don't  know 
as  much  as  you  and  I  do.  We  are  both  trying  to  enlighten 
them  about  various  things,  and  the  particular  subject  I  am 
trying  to  enlighten  them  upon  is  what  hollow  shams  you 
college  professors  are.  They  know  it  about  their  politicians; 
they  guess  it  about  most  of  their  preachers;  but  it's  wonder- 
ful what  erroneous  ideas  they  still  retain  for  the  knowledge 
and  earnestness  of  purpose  that  you  professors  have.  I  can 
understand  well  enough  that  the  esprit  de  corps  among  you 
professors  allows  you  to  excuse  yourself  from  debating  with 
outsiders  upon  subjects  which  you  profess  to  have  more  or 
less  a  monopoly  of  the  knowledge. 

If  you  debated  with  me  I  would  show  to  the  world  what  a 
ridiculous  pretender  you  are.  I  would  not  only  demolish  you, 
but  I  would  at  the  same  time  create  a  doubt  among  the 
people  as  to  the  honesty  and  knowledge  possessed  by  the 
whole  lot  of  your  learned  brethren.  Your  ignominious  de- 
feat before  a  crowded  audience  in  the  great  Auditorium  hall 
in  Chicago  would  have  a  great  effect  in  shattering  the  false 
ideals  held  by  many  as  to  the  omniscience  of  college  pro- 
fessors. It's  true  that  I  am  making  excuses  for  you  to  ignore 
my  challenge,  and  if  I  had  the  slightest  idea  you  would 
accept  if  I  were  more  polite,  I  assure  you  that  I  would  cease 
my  insults.  But  I  know  too  well  that  wild  horses  would 
not  drag  you  to  the  Auditorium,  and  hence  I  feel  serene  in 
saying  what  I  think  about  you  to  your  face,  with  no  mis- 
givings about  my  scaring  away  the  game. 

However,  Professor,  I  am  sorry  to  make  you  feel  uncom- 
fortable. It's  too  bad,  but  you  will  have  some  consolation 
in  reflecting  that  some  people  may  never  see  "The  Challenge," 
and  that  you  will  be  able  to  play  your  part  with  comparative 
safety  if  you  are  only  careful  to  arrange  a  properly  selected 
and  restricted  audience.  I  hope  now  I  have  "relieved  your 
mind"  as  you  relieved  mine  some  years  ago. 

Faithfully  yours, 

Gaylord  Wilshibe. 

P.  S. — You  can  address  me  at  Auditorium  Hotel,  Chicago, 
after  the  22d  inst.  G.  W. 


INDEX 


PAGE 

Addams,  Jane — Artist    (December,  1902) 114 

An  Easy  Way  to  Wealth,  Wish  For  It    (December,  1905)....  186 

An  International  Office  Seeker    (November,  1902) 118 

America  Suffocating:  With  Wealth    (February,  1904) 227 

American   Ideal    The     (February,   1903) 334 

Bearding  the  Nebraska  Lion 398 

Boom  of  1906,  The  (July,  1906) 273 

Bryan  Explains  Socialism    (July,  1904) 304 

Bryan  Will  Discuss  Socialism    (April,  1904) 225 

Capitalism  Breeds  no  Horatios 401 

Chance  for  Prof.  Laughlin,  A  (July,  1901) 405 

Class  vs.  Class:     Resultant    (November,  1904) 161 

Classes  in  America    (March,  1903) 319 

Coffee,  Currants  and  Oranges  (August,  1903) 180 

Columbia's  Race  for  Liberty  (rxpril,  1902) 78 

Death  of  the  Democratic  Party,  The    (December,  1904) 242 

Disadvantage  of  not  Being  a  Princess    (May,  1902) 237 

Distribution  the  Problem    (July,  1905) 100 

;   Effect  of  the  Earthquake  on  Socialism    (May,  1906) 169 

t-  Fallacy  of  Public  Ownership,  The   (May,  1902) 171 

Feudalism  Versus  Capitalism  in  Russia  (May,  1906) 183 

Financial  Cataclysm  Inevitable,  A    (August,  1903) 151 

Gompers  and  His  Little  Plan,  Mr.   (January,  1904) 285 

Good  Old  Rockefeller  (July,  1904) 219 

Heart  to  Heart  Talk,  A    (October,  1902) 350 

Hop  Lee  and  the  Pelican  (Leaflet),  (May,  1903) 51 

How  Hearst  Wastes  His  Good  Money 382 

How  High  Can  Wages  Go?  (December,  1902) 75 

How  to  Be  Happy    (September,  1904) 281 

How  We  Will  Divide    (April,  1904) 259 

Impossibility  of  a  Russian  Social  Revolution,  The   (August, 

1905)    194 

Inexorable  Trust,  The    (February,  1905) 216 

Is  Socialism  Practical?  (May,  1905) 98 

Left  at  The  Evening  Post  (June,  1905) 203 

'  "Merger"  Decision,  The  (May,  1903) 248 

Modern  "Abbot  of  Unreason",  A 393 

Money  Under  Socialism   (February,   1906) 157 

Monopoly  a  Necessity  (January,  1904) 293 

409 


410  Wilshire   Editorials. 

PAGE 

Munich— A  Prophecy  of  the  Future  (November,  1903) 328 

Municipal  Ownership — Its  Meaning  (January,  1906) 122 

Mutation  Theory  Applied  to  Society,  The  (September,  1905).  87 

i  Mysterious  Mr.  Hearst,  The  (April,  1903) 317 

New  Shoes  for  Old  Ballots  (March,  1906) 235 

Not  Striving  for  Good  Form 378 

Old   Lady's   Ailment,    The 376 

Prophecy  of  1891,  A  (August,  1902) 46 

Psychological  Problem,  A  (March,  1902) 231 

"Right  to  Work",  The  (March,  1904) 246 

Rights  of  a  Wheelbarrow,  The  (March,  1905) 306 

Rockefeller  Incognito  (August,  1902) 313 

Roosevelt's  Muck  Rake  (April,  1906) 271 

Salutatory  (December,  1900) 367 

Science  Benefits  the  Rich  (August,  1904) 359 

Sequel  to  a  Modern  Romance^  The   (November,  1903) 324 

Shaw's   "Super-Man"    (October,   1904) 143 

Significance  of  the  Trust,  The  (Pamphlet) 14 

Sippers  of  Carlsbad,  The   (December,  1903) 322 

Socialism:    A  Religion  (June,  1906) 8 

Spencer,  Herbert    (February,   1904) 279 

Strikers  and  the  Meat  Trust,  The  (August,  1904) 206 

Strike  to  Set  Them  Free  (April,  1906) 363 

Talk  with  Rockefeller,  A  (May,  1903) 55 

Ten  Hour  Decision,  The  (June,  1905) 209 

Tesla's  Great  Promise  (July,  1904) 302 

That  5x4  Merger  Joke  (May,  1904) 256 

To    the    Voters    of   the   10th    Congressional    District,    New 

York     (November,   1902) 308 

True  Joy  of  Life,  The  (September,  1902) 63 

Trust  Overshadows  All  Issues,  The  (July,  1902) 338 

Two  Nations,  The  (January,  1905) 268 

Two  World  Conquerors   (September,  1902) 67 

Undigested   Securities   (October,   1903) 296 

Virchow's  Cell  Theory  (May,  1905) 134 

Vote  for  Debs   (September,  1904) 252 

Wall  Street  Journal  Turns  Moralist  (February,  1904) 213 

Wallace's   Great  Book   (February,   1904) 105 

War  or  Socialism  a  Necessity  (March,  1906) 254 

We  Feed  Our  Buffaloes,  but  Starve  Ourselves   (April,  1905)  255 

What  Good  Is  Government  Ownership?  (August,  1904) 263 

What  Is  Religion?  (April,  1905) 361 

What  Men  Vote  For  (October,  1904) 147 

When  Men  Love  Nature  (September,  1904) 240 

White  Collars  and  a  Yellow  Press  (December,  1903) 138 

Why  a  Peacock 371 

Why  a  Workingman  Should  Be  a  Socialist  (Leaflet) 33 

Why  Save  Men's  Soul's?  (December,  1902) 43 

Wilshire's  and  the  Crisis  (March,  1906) 250 

Wilshire's  Exile  to  End  (April,  1904) 221 

World  Trust,  A  (November,  1904) 200 


"LET   THE    NATION   OWN  THE  TRUSTS 


WILTSHIRE'S    MAGAZINE 

GAYLORD  WILSHIRE,   Editor 

Is  the  leading  Socialist  Magazine  in  the  world. 

Has  a  circulation  in  excess  of  300,000.  Finely  illustrated.  Pub- 
lished monthly. 

If  you  wish  to  keep  up  to  date  on  this  most  important  subject, 
subscribe  to-day — or  better  still,  get  a  half  dozen  or  so  of 
your  neighbors  to  subscribe  with  you. 

Subscription  Price:  25  Gents  for  a  Whole  Year 


AT  THE  BAR  OF  PUBLIC  OPINION 

SIR  CHARLES  DILKE,  M.  P.:     I  read  Wilshire's  Magazine  with  interest. 

S.  M.  JONES,  Mayor  of  Toledo:  It  will  help  keep  the  great  ball  of  truth 
rolling. 

EARL   RUSSELL:     I  read  your  magazine  with  pleasure  and  interest. 

WALTER  CRANE,  the  great  English  artist:  Your  excellent  and  striking 
article  on  the  trusts. 

PROF.  GEORGE  D.  HERRON:  I  am  extremely  well  pleased  with  Wilshire's 
Magazine. 

PROF.  N.  A.  RICHARDSON,  Superintendent  San  Bernardino  Public  Schools: 
You    are    issuing    the    ablest    Socialist   paper. 

EDMUND  C.  STEDMAN,  the  "Banker  Poet":  I  have  read  with  interest 
your  article  on  the  "Significance  of  the  Trust,"  and  agree  with  much  of  it. 

JULIAN  HAWTHORNE,  distinguished  novelist:  I  read  your  magazine  with 
interest  and  am  in  complete  sympathy  with  you  in  your  attitude  toward 
the  American  post-office  people. 

BARONESS  VON  SUTTNER,  President  Austrian  Peace  Society:  I  thank 
you  most  warmly  for  sending  me  your  brilliant  paper.  I  feel  as  if  some 
one  had  given  me  a  box  full  of  precious  stones  and  pearls. 

411 


EDWIN  MARKHAM,  author  of  "Man  With  the  Hoe":  Its  typographical 
appearance  is  excellent,  and  I  have  not  seen  a  paper  more  stimulating  and 
suggestive  on  questions  of  progressive  politics. 

LEONARD  D.  ABBOTT,  Staff  of  "Current  Literature":  American  Socialists 
want  such  literature,  imbued  with  deep  Socialist  spirit,  and  with  a  clear 
concept  of  the  history,  the  philosophy,  the  ethics  and  the  economics  of  the 
international   Socialist   movement. 

H.  M.  HYNDMAN,  "England's  Greatest  Socialist":  As  to  yourself,  you 
have  seen  much  of  both  worlds,  the  old  and  the  new.  You  are  experienced 
in  business,  have  studied  widely  and  have  thought  a  great  deal.  Soundly 
and  broadly  based  upon  the  true  theories  of  material  and  industrial  evolu- 
tion, you  can  bring  your  fully  developed  mind  to  bear  with  ripe  theoretical 
insight  upon  the  last  stage  of  capitalism,  now  extending  all  round  you. 
You  are  thus  able  to  keep  constantly  before  your  countrymen  the  true 
meaning  of  events  which  at  present  they  scarcely  appreciate,  and  through 
your  magazine  can  thus  help  them  to  rise  to  the  level  of  their  opportunities 
as  educated  and  class  conscious  citizens  of  the  world.  I  know  none  who 
is  better  capable  than  yourself  of  rendering  this  great  service  to  the  workers 
of  America  and  to    mankind  at   large. 

W.  S.  CAINE,  M.  P.,  member  Royal  Indian  Finance  Commission:  I  have  been 
much  interested  in  reading  a  copy  of  Wilshire's   Magazine. 

EUGENE  V.  DEBS:  You  are  storming  the  strongholds  of  the  enemy  and  you 
keep  the  air  filled  with  grape  and  canister  and  heavier  missiles.  Wilshire's 
Magazine  is  a  credit  to  you  and  to  the  cause.  It  means  business,  and  says 
so  in  plain  language. 

E.  BELFORT   BAX,  London:     You   have  succeeded   in   starting   a  thoroughly 

sound  and  uncompromising  party  organ.  Hardly  the  most  enraged  of 
Socialists  will  be  able  to  deny  that  you  are  fighting  a  good  fight  and  keep- 
ing the  faith  of  Social  Democracy  without  any  shirking.  Long  life  and 
prosperity  to   Wilshire's   Magazine. 

A.  M.  SIMONS,  editor  "International  Socialist  Review":  Permit  me  to  con- 
gratulate you  on  the  appearance  of  Wilshire's  Magazine.  "It  fills  a  long- 
felt  want,"  and  will  make  Socialists  wherever  it  finds  readers  who  know 
enough  to  draw  conclusions  from  facts  so  submitted  to  them.  It  is  cer- 
tainly the    "warmest  number"    of  the   Socialist  press  circle. 

JACK  LONDON,  author  of  "The  Son  of  the  Wolf":  Wilshire's  Magazine 
seems  the  incarnation  of  the  push  and  go  of  the  period.  I  saw  the  first 
copies  this  morning  and  send  in  my  subscription  at  once.  There  is  a  snap 
and  go  about  your  new  venture  which  I  must  say  I  like,  to  say  nothing 
of  its  intrinsic  worth.  1  know  I  shall  get  my  money  back  manyfold  ere 
the  year  is  out. 

F.  YORK  POWELL,  M.  A.,  Regius  Professor  of  Modern  History,  Oxford  Uni- 

versity, England:  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  March  23,  1901 — Dear  Wil- 
shire: — I  am  glad  you  and  your  paper  are  doing  well.  You  always  prophe- 
sied that  the  trusts  would  go  on  till  they  got  into  one  or  two  hands,  and 
then  the  nation  would  take  them  over.  It  looks  like  happening  now  fairly 
soon.  Keep  pegging  away  at  the  monstrous  industrial  slavery  you  have 
exposed  at  Chicago  so  ably.     I  wish  you  all  luck. 

J.  A.  HOBSON,  the  distinguished  English  economist,  author  of  "The  Evolu^ 
tion  of  Modern  Capitalism":  Your  article,  "Significance  of  the  Trusf," 
which  I  have  just  read,  is  the  straightest,  strongest,  most  convincing,  and 
most  scientifically  accurate  account  of  the  relation  between  capital  and 
imperialism  that  has  yet  appeared. 


412 


PROGRESS 

A  NEW  SOCIALIST  MAGAZINE 

Edited  by  Gaylord  Wilshire 


At  present  a  quarterly,  but  will  be  changed  to  a  monthly  as 
soon  as  a  circulation  of  100,000  is  obtained. 

It  is  intended  to  make  this  magazine  indicative  of  Progress 
along  the  lines  of  Science,  Art  and  Literature;  and  as  Socialism 
is  the  most  progressive  of  all  sciences,  it  will  be  dealt  with  prom- 
inently. 

Subscription  price,  so  long  as  the  magazine  is  a  quarterly, 
will  be  only  10c.  per  year.  Send  your  subscription  at  once  to  the 

WILSHIRE  BOOK  COMPANY 

200  William  Street,  New  York  City 


413 


WILSHIRE  LEAFLETS 


1.     Why  Workingmen  Should  be  Socialists.       By  Gaylord  Wil- 
shire.     Price,  2c;  75c.  per  100,  postpaid. 

This  is  one  of  the  classics  of  the  literature  on  Socialism  in 
America. 

It  was  written  over  fifteen  years  ago,  and  has  been  printed  by 
many  different  publishing  houses,  and,  so  far  as  is  known,  the  cir- 
culation to-day  has  been  ten  or  eleven  million  copies. 

For  simplicity  and  completeness  it  cannot  be  beaten.  An 
excellent  pamphlet  to  circulate  in  large  quantities. 


2.  The  Significance  of  the  Trust.    By  Gaylord  Wilshire.     Price, 

5c;  $2.00  per  100,  postpaid. 

In  this  pamphlet  the  author  defines  the  trust  question  and 
makes  it  plain  that  the  inevitable  outcome  is  Socialism.  Written 
in  a  simple,  popular  style.  It  is  a  most  excellent  pamphlet  for 
distribution.  Give  this  pamphlet  to  the  man  who  says  Socialism 
won't  work,  and,  after  he  has  studied  it,  he  will  abandon  all  such 
arguments. 

3.  WiIshire=Seligman  Debate.  Price,  5c;  $2.00  per  100,  postpaid. 

This  debate  is  a  verbatim  report  of  a  memorable  debate  be- 
tween Gaylord  Wilshire,  Editor  of  "Wilshire's  Magazine,"  and 
Professor  Seligman,  of  Columbia  College. 

It  is  very  good  reading  for  the  man  who  wants  to  hear  "both 
sides." 

4.  Hop  Lee  and  the  Pelican.     By  Gaylord  Wilshire.  Price,  2c; 

75c.   per  100,  postpaid. 

This  pamphlet  is  illustrated  in  an  interesting  manner.  It  is  a 
fable  illustrating  how  Hop  Lee  makes  the  pelican  work  for  him. 
and  has  a  very  apt  moral. 

414 


5.  The  Tramp.    By   Jack    London.      Price,   5c;    $2.00   per    100, 

postpaid. 

This  pamphlet  is  by  the  well-known  novelist  and  author  of 
"The  Sea  Wolf,"  "Call  of  the  Wild,"  "War  of  the  Classes,"  etc.,  etc. 

In  it  the  development  of  the  tramp  is  traced.  The  book  has 
many  valuable  statistics  and  altogether  is  a  terrible  indictment  of 

the  capitalist  system. 

6.  Wilshire=Carver  Debate.   Price,  5c;  100  copies,  $2.00,  postpaid. 

T.  N.  Carver,  Professor  of  Political  Economy,  Harvard  Uni- 
versity, vs.   Gaylord  Wilshire,   Editor  "Wilshire's  Magazine." 

A  debate  on  Socialism  held  January  15,  1906,  at  Hartford, 
Conn.,  before  the  "Get-Together  Club,"  between  Professor 
Thomas  Nixon  Carver,  Professor  of  Political  Economy,  Harvard 
University,  and  Gaylord  Wilshire,  Editor  of  "Wilshire's  Maga- 
zine." 

Professor  Gustavus  A.  Kleene,  Professor  of  Economics,  Trin- 
ity College,  presided  as  chairman. 

7.  Why  Save  Men's  Souls?   By  Gaylord  Wilshire.     Price,  50c. 

per  100,  postpaid. 

This  is  a  reprint  of  a  very  good  editorial  that  appeared  in 
"Wilshire's  Magazine."  An  excellent  thing  to  give  to  those  re- 
ligiously inclined. 

8.  A  B  C  of  Socialism.      By  H.  P.  Moyer.     Price,  2c;  $1.00  per 

100,  postpaid. 

A  pamphlet  that  is  good  to  distribute  among  people  who  wish 
a  simple  treatise  on  the  subject. 

9.  Easy  Lessons  in  Socialism.     By  Wm.  H.  Leffingwell.     Price, 

5c;  $2.25  per  100,  postpaid. 

In  this  booklet  the  essential  principles  of  Socialism  are  stated 
in  five  simple  lessons,  each  containing  four  propositions.  It  is 
specially  adapted  to  put  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  never  yet 
done  any  reading  on  the  subject  of  Socialism. 

10.  Socialism  a  Religion.   A  new  pamphlet  by  Gaylord  Wilshire. 

2c.  each;  $1.00  per  100;  $7.50  per  1,000. 

REAL  RELIGION  is  something  which  finds  a  man,  rather 
than   something  which   he   finds.     Mr.   Wilshire   and  most  good 

415 


Socialists  agree  that  until  the  belief  in  Socialism  gets  hold  of  the 
hearts  and  emotions  of  the  people,  more  as  a  religion  than  as  an 
understanding  of  economic  events,  there  is  not  going  to  be  a 
social  revolution. 

The  best  Socialist  is  one  who  cannot  only  sympathize  with 
poverty  and  wish  to  alleviate  it,  but  who  has  the  imagination  to 
see  the  world  of  beauty  which  Socialism  promises  as  the  goal  to 
be  realized. 

With  poverty  abolished  from  the  earth,  men  will  devote  them- 
selves to  living  their  spiritual  lives,  and  Socialism  is  merely  a 
path  to  this  end. 

It  is  just  the  pamphlet  to  pass  along  to  your  "church-going 
friend." 

11.  My  Master  the  Machine.    By  Roy  O.  Ackley.     Reprint  of 

an  excellent  propaganda  article  that  appeared  in  Wilshire's 
Magazine,  October,  1906.  Price,  2c.  per  copy;  $1.00  per 
100;  $7.50  per  1,000. 

12.  Socialism,  The  Hope  of  the  World.    By  Eugene  Wood,  author 

of  "Back  Home,"  etc  Reprint  of  an  article  in  Wilshire's 
Magazine,  November,  1906.    Price,  5c.  a  copy;  $2.00  per  100. 

13.  The  Haywood-Moyer  Outrage.  By  Joseph  Wanhope.    $2.50 

per  100,  postpaid. 

A  more  important  pamphlet  concerning  the  labor  movement 
has  never  been  issued. 

It  is  a  trenchant  indictment  of  capitalism. 

It  will  "sell  like  hot  cakes"  at  your  meetings.  Especially  good 
for  outdoor  meetings.  You  should  see  that  every  union  man  in 
town  gets  one. 

It  has  gone  through  two  editions. 
Now  is  the  time  to  order. 


Entire  Set  of  These  Leaflets  Sent  Postpaid  for  15  Cents. 
WILSHIRE  BOOK  CO.,  NEW  YORK. 


416 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


APR  9-19 
1  1960 

APR  H  I860. 
231960 


NOV  9    I960 

DEC 


^^irfl  "IS 


recd  ld-URI  JUL    3 1975 

HMiKi-   MAY  3  0 

IHWIW* 


SI  1979" 

DISCHAR6E 

QCT    61982 


! 


U«l  JUL  3    1&B7 
*««.5    OCT 


12 


/% 


HAY  6  3 1988 

ORION      n*«fc— 
ID/URL   JW0*8| 


Form  L9-100m-9,'52(A3105)444 


4  JBI 

**  3   11 


58  00425  8058 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


